id
stringlengths 7
27
| domain
stringclasses 31
values | text_type
stringclasses 2
values | original_text
stringlengths 14
42.2k
|
|---|---|---|---|
human-3759
|
cmv
|
human
|
I am on the fence about gun control in general. There are fair arguments on both sides. I can only conclude that there is no conclusive evidence that demonstrate the utility of gun control laws. The dream scenario is obviously to remove all existing guns, to include those in the hands of criminals. Only law enforcement will have guns. However, that is impossible, criminals will always find guns. So realistically, there is almost no chance we can completely get rid of guns in America. Since we cannot un-arm the part of the populous that wants to do harm, the only reasonable solution is to arm the part of the populous that wants to defend themselves. EDIT: It appears that I have to explain my plan to arm the populous. It would be a gov't sponsored push for gun safety education (similar to driving), gov't sponsored campaign for gun ownership, tax cuts for 1st time gun owners, stricter background check on gun purchase, stricter laws for gun registration (like cars), free law-enforcement provided gun training, lower ammo prices. The idea isn't to arm the populous to fight a war against the criminals. The idea is to promote gun ownership to changer the perception of the criminal's evaluation of their potential victims. If criminals believes that more people are armed due to this push for additional gun owners, they will have to re-evaluate the threat level of their victims, thus gravitating toward crimes that will be less likely to result in a dangerous confrontation with their victims. Criminals don't want to die either. So if they think everyone has a gun, instead of a home robbery at gun point, they are more likely to try to attempt a burglary when no one is home. Instead of car jacking you on the street, they might try car theft instead. Thus, making the society safer as a whole. TL;DR: Since getting rid of all guns is out of the question, the better way to increase public safety in relation to gun control is to increase the amount of guns through gov't sponsored programs. The goal is to change criminal's perception of the vulnerability of their targets to deter them to commit "riskier" crimes.
|
human-3215
|
cmv
|
human
|
I believe that birth control, while generally a quality of life improvement, is not a "basic human right" as many people would argue. The largest argument I have heard is one of women's rights, in that women should have control over their own reproductive choices, and birth control is a means to that end. I believe that the basic human right associated with reproductive choice is the right to refuse sexual intercourse. People are entirely free to not have children, and that freedom should be protected as a human right. However, I don't believe that people are entitled to having sex without consequences. There are many things in this world that are quality of life improvements, but that doesn't necesitate that they be provided free of charge and considered fundamental to decent human existance. As an aside, I understand that birth control pills are often prescribed as a treatment for certain conditions. I would consider that as medicine and a basic human right. I am speaking only to birth control to be used for the purpose of recreational sex. So there you have it, please CMV. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2971
|
cmv
|
human
|
Rchangemyview, I have a challenge for you: Equal Opportunity Vs. Equal Outcomes I recently decided to make an roffmychest about my position on the notions of equality and a couple of comments were made, but in each instance the comments posted seemed to go off topic, venturing toward mildly related subjects that seemed to fit more what commenters wanted to argue about rather than actually debating what I was proposing. Here's my original posting:[Original Posting] My assertion is we have equal opportunity in this country and the proposed issues of discrimination and "inequality" that exist reflect from one's perspectives of outcomes vs. effort expended; I believe people inaccurately judge the different levels of efforts vs. the reward attained at the end as being synonmyous with the equality of the opportunities that exist when in fact they are wholly separate elements. Since then, I've had time to refine my position a bit so that I can articulate these assertions better. To sum up: We have equal opportunity in the U.S. I believe this has been the case since the civil rights movement succeeded in fixing quite a few problems and even more so with the creation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act, I believe that from a logical and legal standard, we have equality in this country. Thus, any policy that exists beyond the aforementioned Act are in fact creating an element of inequality that cause the standards of equality, fairness, and balance to be tipped in favor of one group over another. What I pose to you, rChangemyview, is that you read what has been expressed in my original post and provide a solid rebuttal. I'm always open to different perspectives and I would very much like to know if I indeed hold an invalid or logically flawed outlook on the situation. There's even comments from someone who disagreed with my initial assertion, but I feel that they were arguing something, while somewhat related to what we were discussing, it was not directly the issue we were exchanging. I warn you, though, this comment is VERY long and had to be divided into two parts due to its size. I honestly think it will be worth the read, and I really hope to promote a very hearty and healthy discussion about the points I've made. And if you disagree, please, be clear in why you don't agree with what I have to say. I'm very much interested in seeing this issue through other people's perspectives. EDIT: I appreciate everyone's responses and I'm sorry I've not been able to respond as quickly as I would have liked. Work family functions and a trip to the VA kinda did take priority. That said. All of you have made good points and as some have stated, I need to research the subject more closely. The foundations of my assertions have been purely formulated off what logic I felt could be applied, along with personal experience. While you've not changed my view, you have given me a reason to seek the knowledge to gain a better understanding, and that's a start.
|
human-2918
|
cmv
|
human
|
I think that if a person is likely to experience more pain or discomfort than pleasure and happiness for the rest of his life, then suicide is a logical and justified thing to do. However, I do believe that many people who attempt or consider attempting suicide have bad judgements in the moment because of depression, panic attacks, drugs, etc. I think that we almost always advise people not to kill themselves because (a) we personally don't want them to die, (b) we legitimately believe that they'd be better off alive, and (c) we don't want to be responsible for their deaths. I also believe that suicide can be immoral because it negatively effects victims' friends and families. CMV
|
human-1777
|
cmv
|
human
|
Specifically on reddit, but also frequently in public discourse, I see the idea that the American Dream is dead. More often than not, this is attributed to the idea that big businesses and wealthy people buy elections and votes that create policy that detriments the poor. I don't think there is anything remotely close to conclusive to support this, and that there is plenty of evidence supporting the opposite, or at least a different conclusion. From an anecdotal standpoint, every single wealthy person I know came from a middle to lower class family. From a more official standpoint, The University of Chicago did a study of all US billionaires, and found that 69 of billionaired were self made, meaning that they obtained their wealth through their own means and did not inherit. 20 of the billionaires actually came from below the poverty line. This video explains the picture of what a perfectly mobile society would look like very well. Basically, in a mobile society, 20 of children born in the bottom 20 should grow up to be in each other quintile. Now, the part I dislike about that video is that I think it makes an illogical and biased conclusion. He has excellent and accurate data concerning the likelihood various groups have of moving from the lower class to the upper class. However, he doesn't extrapolate the information to the conclusion I think it leads to. He explicitly goes into detail that shows that those born to lower class married households, born lower class and white, and born lower class with a college degree can expect almost perfect mobility, meaning they are just as likely to end up wealthy as anything else. However, black people born to the lower class, people born to unmarried families, and people who do not graduate high school, are extremely unlikely to reach the upper class. He also shows that the lower class as a whole leans more strongly toward not being able to reach the upper class. To me the conclusion is very obviously not that the system is designed to prevent upward mobility. To me the conclusion is that there is either a problem with the way society treats black families specifically (no surprise there) or a problem with black culture itself, or most likely a combination of those. Consider also that blacks are almost three times as likely to be poor, that two thirds of black children are born to single parents, and that black children are the least likely to graduate high school of any race, and it seems fairly obvious that the black population skews the statistics to make it appear as though the class you are born into is the greatest determinate to where you will end up. In actuality, it is a race issue, not a class issue. Now, to clarify, this isn't a "black people are inferior and do stupid things" rant. I'm merely trying to say that the focus should be elsewhere, as in how can we help the black community to succeed, andor try to change societies views that are holding them back, andor try and figure out the root of the problem. I think it is a mixture of being born in poor inner city areas with bad education (i.e. forces outside the child's control), and problems that exist with the way that the black community views women and education (i.e. social norms developed over time either in reaction to adverse environments, prejudice, or whatever caused it). I'm not saying that issues within the black community are genetic, inherent, or even caused by black people. I am only saying that they exist. Considering all of that, I believe it is in no way logical to pin social mobility problems on rich people trying to keep the generic poor down. I think social mobility is, outside of the black community, fine in America, that the American dream is alive and well, and that focus should be shifted toward aiding the black community to make it more mobile instead of focusing on redistribution or any other method of taking influence away from the wealthy. Links for all statistical information: EDIT: To clarify, this post is about poor people, not black people specifically. I go into depth about black people because they have the most influence on the relevant statistics and I think are the best example of what the real problems are. I also like to avoid being called a racist, so I probably filled my arguments with too many qualifications in order to avoid that. EDIT: I would appreciate it if those that choose to respond responded to my points. I'm not making the claim that people, including the wealthy, do not act in self interest. I am saying that the economic mobility problem very clearly affects a certain group heavily, and for that reason skews the statistics to make it seem as though our country has low social mobility. To change my view, or to create a constructive dialogue, you must respond to what I said, not what your gut feeling about the issue is. If you did not take the time to read the facts I presented, I will choose not to respond to you. EDIT: I see how what I said is unclear. I am not saying "ignore social mobility because it only affects blacks, thus our social mobility is fine," I am saying that social mobility is not an overarching problem that affects Americans, but rather a problem heavily influenced by specific factors that are extremely prevalent in the black community. This is not meant to say we have perfect social mobility, it is meant to say that the problem is localized to one group, and that policy should focus on assisting that group. People normally argue that social mobility is slim for American's on the whole, and that this is because the rich favor policies that hurt the poor on the whole. I am arguing that the American dream exists as it should for whites and non black minorities specifically because those groups have less prevalence of influencing factors. Thus, it is illogical to conclude that the rich detriment the poor on the whole, and a new conclusion should be drawn that searches for causes and solutions to the problems within the black community. I'm not saying ignore blacks to make it seem like we have better social mobility, I am saying focus on blacks because they are the group that statistically hold mobility back, and thus assisting them would eliminate the mobility problem since it is not experienced by other groups. Another EDIT: I should also clarify, though I thought this was fairly clear, that I'm not blaming anything on black people. I'm not saying any of the problems facing them are their fault, or that it is due to some intrinsic characteristics they have. I am saying that, statistically, social mobility is less in the black community due to a higher concentration of certain factors, and that we should be focusing on helping them instead of blaming the rich or providing more for other non black poor. My point is that, statistically, social mobility within other poor groups is what should be expected from a perfectly mobile society, or at least close, so focusing money and effort on those groups won't change anything. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3896
|
cmv
|
human
|
I am a 25 year old woman going to marry a 45 year old man, and we have been together since I was 20 years old. I get "you're going to divorceit's going to failthat's absurd" all the time. The thing is, I absolutely know it is not going to fail and the only thing that will lead us apart is going to be someone's death. I don't think my love is the most "special" in the whole world, and I certainly don't think I am the only person who has ever felt like this but I know many people in marriages of 20-25 years duration who have less trust, compatibility, love, and happiness in their relationship than we do. The main criticisms I see are 1) "You can't possibly be compatible in maturity and life interests" (which is untrue, because I doubt we would be able to have a 5 year long relationship if this was true) and 2) "he is going to grow old and you'll be miserable" (I don't know if this will happen, but I know that love is strong enough that people who love each other will be there for each other in youth old age). I'm curious as to what other people think is a main concern for these types of age difference relationships. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3719
|
cmv
|
human
|
Edit: I was referring to the House of Representatives, specifically. The human brain is supposedly done developing around the age of 25. This is when people are at their most mentally developed, active, and youthful, and likely shortly out of college with some experience. By supporting a system that results in ageism through "experience" in benefit of older adults and elders, we tie modern America to flawed thinking of the past it amounts to ideological lag. We've decidedly forced ourselves into a world owned by people who are no longer properly invested in it. I'm sure many congresspeople have an understanding of some modern technology and opinions, but for the most part, the potential advantages are lost on their traditional thinking. On top of all this, with age comes apathy, and this isn't something we want in government. Even in one of the worst case scenarios, a cowering neophyte with ears and empathy would make for a far superior representative than someone who feels they've earned their position of power after many years. A healthy society should include a strong voice from the human animal at its prime. Senate can be composed of older judges, Congress of young adults and our loud voices, and the presidency by someone middle-aged as a motherfather-figure for our nation. Change my view. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3894
|
cmv
|
human
|
So, those brave souls that have wandered onto rgaming as of late might have noticed something curious; the top posts of the subreddit are related to PCs! Well, at least the top posts for today, at any rate. You also might have noticed that some of them seem like inside jokes, of a sort. Long story short, the mods of rgaming banned the entirety of rPCmasterrace. So some people are a bit...well...irritated? Irritated. Some people are a bit irritated. Now, why is all of this relevant to rgaming's policy against pictures of plain old PCs? A mod of rgaming posted clarification on why the "PC Pic" policy actually exists. People aren't too thrilled about the mod's justifications. Now, the post does not involve the recent ban in any way. That is, to say, that the only time it is mentioned is to establish that it won't be discussed in the mod's post. So, we can discuss the logic behind the ban without involving this drama stuff at all. Yay! So, if anyone reading this post feels strongly about the recent ban, be aware of your potential bias. We're gonna talk about the logic behind this rule as though the subreddit was back to its usual state. To summarize why, according to the mods, this rule should exist,: 1. PCs wildly vary in their purpose, and are not necessarily related to gaming. While PCs can be built around functioning as a console, the PC is not defined by their potential role as a machine that can run games. Consoles, however, such as the Xbox One and the PS4, are defined by their role as a machine that can run games. Therefore, simply posting a picture of a PC is not the same as posting a picture of a console; a picture of a PC is not necessarily related to gaming, so posting picture of a PC that isn't clearly related to gaming (via a picture of a game on the screen) should not be allowed. 2. Redditors on rgaming have discriminated against individuals that post what isn't considered "a true gaming pc." There isn't any reason to assume that the population of rgaming is now capable of handling this (and I sort of laughably call it a) "privilege." If the rule is taken away, people who post pictures of "not true gaming computers," which they've poured time and money into, will likely be made to feel "lesser." Arguments against 1 (and my thoughts on their validity): 1. Posting a gaming computer in rgaming is what makes it gaming-related. The population of the subreddit is what determines if a post is "gaming-related," andm on a gaming subreddit, a post of a picture of hardware strongly related to gaming computers is clearly seen by users as a gaming-related post. I'd say that this is a good counter, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. 2. Consoles aren't "exclusively" for gaming, so consoles should have the same "arbitrary" rules as PCs (this suggestion is sarcastic, and meant to show how silly the existing rule is). The Xbox One and PS4 can be used to watch Netflix, and the Xbox One is intended to function as more than a gaming console; it is capable of acting as a cable box, as well as contacting family and friends via Skype. This argument is a bit silly, in my opinion. Consoles' role in the past 30-40 years has been one of a gaming platform, and little, if anything else. The consoles of the new generation still clearly have this role, and are perceived by many people to have this role. The same cannot be said about PCs, as PCs have, in recent history (and today), been used for many, many functions, from gaming, to spreadsheets, to word documents, to programming machines, to teaching, to websurfing, etc. I haven't seen any reasoning against 2, so if you'd want to CMV, your best bet would be attacking that justification. Anyways, CMV! Hopefully, there will be some actual discussion about the rule's validity, given that the population of rgaming was not in a massive retaliation against the mod's recent mass ban. Also, the edit was for grammar.
|
human-4047
|
cmv
|
human
|
I just don't see how to resolve this - say you want to make a single purpose wearable that people will use infrequently (wearable drone or something similar). This would have to be cheap enough to offset the fact the user won't use it everyday. If you were able to make it cheap enough to be economically viable, there's still the question of whether people will trust your unknown company enough to buy the device from you. Either we will have hundreds of super small companies making a ton of different IoT devices, or the large companies will just make them. People already trust Google and Apple in their homes. The only compromise I can see is it the large companies take smaller companies under their wing, so to speak, and attach their brand name to it. Convince me otherwise? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2036
|
cmv
|
human
|
This philosophy gets into trouble quite easily: Human growth and expansion directly threatens animals rights, wether it's a new road or homes or any other consequence of human civilization, so if an animal has the same rights as a human being regarding life an well-being, then it should come into consideration of every aspect of human civilization which is: No more human colonization of animals habitats, no more animal displacement through expansion of human habitats, no more agriculture as it destroys animal habitats of the benefit of humans. There is nothing wrong with "speciesism," our very existence is speciesist, if you clear an animal habitat for crops, that's speciesism because you are destroying animal's home for the sake of your own species. Cohen writes in his book The Animal rights debate that rights are an exclusive contract within moral agents, animals aren't moral agents and therefore cannot have any rights, the principal objection towards this is that this would apply to the senile and human babies, however, this does not render the arguement wrong, it only makes it more complex, being a baby is a temporal state of a moral agent, and anything done against it is done into the inevitbale moral agent, the logic behind "what about babies" is irrelevant as it tries to take advantage of a temporal human state. Now, the senile, depend on the mental state, if such person is metally retarded to the point of amorality then they do get diminished rights, normally they're put in an institution are they are a harm to others and themselves, such person would be better off through euthanasia with consent of the family, but that is my opinion, moving about this concepts inevitably can lead in a debate of abortion and euthaniasia, which I don't want. Furthermore, morality is what we use to make a clear distinction within species, animals cannot even scratch this clearly superior level of conciousness, try applying Maslow's pyramid of human needs to an animals and come back and tell me our consiouness is equal. Are animals innocent? No, innocence and guilt are attributes of moral agents, which also clearly shows a distinction, you cannot say an animal is guilty of anything, we all know that, then, how can you say, as an animal rights supporter, that their conciousness is equal? When they cannot even begin to understand what they are doing, when they cannot have guilt no matter what they do? If animals have the same right to life, then [what of this?] , doesn't this go against animal rights? Those prey where happy pasturing in peace and now they get predators that will cause them suffering and death, this is clearly against animal rights. If it is OK to kill animals for the sake of ecology, then wouldn't it be also OK to kill humans for the sake of ecology? Just sharing my thought on why I think "animal rights" has always sounded ridiculous for me. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3261
|
cmv
|
human
|
To me, it seems like it's just another form of entertainment. After being able to learn how to read in general, I see no reason to read the Oedipus Cycle or The Catcher in the Rye. The morals of these books could be shown through movies and TV shows so why is this any different? Studies show that people that read more in their free time have higher GPAs and SAT scores but I think that's just correlation and not causation because people who read on their free time probably don't have the most action-packed social life so they have more time to study. Why is reading different than watching a movie?
|
human-2089
|
cmv
|
human
|
I was reading a thread on the frontpage about how in America, the public vote counts for next to nothing. First reply after the top comment is about net neutrality. I don't believe anyone between the ages of 1 and 30 is against net neutrality, which leads to my conclusion. Older people should not be permitted to influence public policy on subjects that they do not understand because they have become too distanced from the current culture and technology. I could reference other cases of older generations giving the youth the shaft, intentionally or not (police bargaining to a new contract that retroactively increases their pay but decreases the pay of all incoming officers, social security...). CMV. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3274
|
cmv
|
human
|
Lately I have been wondering about this. Over in rledzeppelin there's been several recent interviews from Jimmy Page, who never turns down a chance to slag mp3's. But I'm willing to bet if you sat him down with proper experimental controls, he'd fail as much as anyone else at hearing any difference, at say 256 kbps bitrate or higher. He's mentioned the new Led Zeppelin deluxe reissues will include download cards for 2496 versions of all tracks. That being said, I still don't like mp3's, at least for home audio. I'm a bit of a snob about it, probably much like a lot of people. I like my audiophile setup a lot. I tend to covet original gold cd's (Mobil Fidelity Sound Lab etc.) or LP's. But my ears probably can't catch much difference. And certainly I hugely love plugging an iPod full of mp3's into my fancy vehicle audio system.
|
human-2010
|
cmv
|
human
|
EDIT 2: I went to bed and stopped replying, but I'm back now. Sorry about that. Ever since the rise of television, the argument over wether media depicting violence increases violent crime and aggressive attitudes has been incessantly debated. After television, it has been video games' turn in the scope, with stories such as [petition to remove GTAV from target in Australia] , or [Anita Sarkeesian's criticism on how games promote violence towards women] . EDIT: Anita Sarkeesian doesn't say games promote violence, but rather that they desensitize gamers to it. That's poor wording on my part. Thanks uKelsig for pointing that out. I simply don't buy it. There have been few academic studies that actually have a decent sample size (at the very least 100 people), and those that do are either [inconclusive] or show [no real correlation] between violence and violent video games. I have a very big problem with the idea that violent videogames translate to violent crime: where is that data? The FBI reports a steady decrease of violent crime from [2009-2013] and wikipedia shows similar results on a higher scale, with a general decrease [all the way from the early 1990's] . The UK shows positive results as well, with the guardian reporting that violent crime [decreased by 68 from 1995] and similar results are shown [by the ONS] . I'm pretty sure most western countries show similar violent crime rates. The disparity here is with how much time people actually spend on games. About 5 ago, COD kills [surpassed the population of the Earth] , and it's not rare that devoted players reach [hundreds of thousands of kills in 5 or 6 years] . To me, there is simply no way a significant correlation between these two sets of data exist, and I think any statistician would agree. I do have one more issue I want to address, however: people choose games based on their predispositions, and not the other way around. People who really like football choose FIFA, because of that, and people who find FPSs enjoyable buy these games and spend hundreds of hours on them. I don't find it weird that if you like something, you spend a lot of time on it. It just doesn't add up. So, rchangemyview, do what you're good at:) Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2904
|
cmv
|
human
|
This one is a bit of a difficult grey area for me, but I get very uncomfortable when I see people excessively supporting their countries troops to go to war. I absolutely disagree with war (like many people do) but more so I see today's wars as nothing more than countries such as the US and UK (my country) exploiting smaller countries resources, such as their oil. Basically, I believe most of the wars that those countries are involved in have nothing to do with defending from terrorism, or taking down horrible dictators etc; they are involved for profit. I feel that groups such as the Taliban exist because nations such as the above invade and exploit countries in the middle east. I believe that people who glorify their country going to war are hopelessly brainwashed by mass media, being that they believe in systems such as this that only every keep the big guys (governments, corporations etc) on top, whilst exploiting the little countries and forcing them into poverty. I absolutely understand paying respects to those who fought in the World Wars and similar battles, but not for the current campaigns that the UK and US are involved in. But I may be completely wrong. I don't feel as though I know the full details of both sides and that's where you guys come in. Change my view.
|
human-1319
|
cmv
|
human
|
- Lobbying is prohibited. No one is allowed to influence US politics other than by voting for their preferred candidates. Many countries do not support lobbying, and are absolutely fine. - Presidential candidates may not, under any circumstances, publicize themselves through monetary means. The White House will host debates online, and the presidential candidates (all of them, not just the two big ones) will receive an equal amount of publicity through those debates. This way, the smaller candidates aren't automatically out of the question. This also means that outsiders can't influence who gets voted by donating toward a certain candidate. I haven't given this a whole lot of thought, this actually occurred to me only 5 minutes ago. This is too simple to be without flaws, so I'm looking for counterarguments. I am also not American, so I do not fully understand how your political system works. I hope this doesn't sound too stupid.
|
human-2944
|
cmv
|
human
|
Okay not literally morons but I think it's very incorrect and overall an extremely lazy way of thinking about those people. I think that peoples' political affiliations do not accurately reflect the sincerity and integrity of their moral convictions. Living in an overwhelmingly liberal area, I always hear people say that Republicans as a whole are greedy and selfish and just want more money and won't empathize with anyone of lower class than them. Overall Republicans are seen as decidedly immoral. I even hear similar things about Libertarians as well. While I am rather left-leaning myself, I think that that sort of anti-Republican sentiment is lazy and, somewhat ironically, indicative of an inability to empathize with those peoples' convictions. EDIT: Okay, obviously I should have narrowed my statement a bit. I'm talking about the more 'mainstream' affiliations here. I'm not saying that Nazis and Islamists are moral, I'm more talking about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. talking about other affiliations as if they are immoral. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1958
|
cmv
|
human
|
Children who are from broken homes or who are adopted are statistically less likely to succeed. When comparing homosexual couples who adopt to heterosexual couples with their own children, the test is already flawed before it begins. Essentially this is like testing who can swim better: People with blonde hair or people with brown hair. If you put 45 pound weights on the backs of every blonde person, your study will appear to show that brown-haired people can swim better than blonde-haired people. If you want to answer the question: What is the difference in parenting between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples? You have to give a fair study. A more fair and equal study would be to compare two groups of homosexual and heterosexual couples with similar educational backgrounds, economic status, etc, and both groups of whom adopt children. Comparing homosexual couples who adopt children to traditional heterosexual couples who have children of their own is not a fair study because the circumstances are not the same. We are comparing homosexual vs heterosexual parenting but we are putting them in different environments, one of which very definitively shows more negative results, whether it involves homosexual or heterosexual families. Another good study would be to compare homosexual couples who have their own biological children via surrogate, and compare them with heterosexual couples with their own biological children whether through a surrogate or with their partner. With this said, I believe that all "studies" or statistics dealing with homosexual parenting vs heterosexual parenting is flawed at best, and outright misinformation and propaganda at worst. CMV
|
human-2363
|
cmv
|
human
|
Firstly, let me clarify that I am referring to pre college education, and that I am speaking from my personal experience. I consider American education to be flawed due to the behavior it encourages. Students, for the most part, are not encouraged to push themselves; the system rewards those who stay well within their capabilities and get a 4.0. Furthermore, it doesn't encourage actually learning the material. Instead, all that matters is scoring points. This turns school into a game; a game where those who know how to exploit the system can perform far better than those of superior skill who are unwilling or unable to exploit the system. Somebody restore my faith in my education... Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2826
|
cmv
|
human
|
To give things a little context: I am black and rap is the only genre of music that I actively dislike. I've tried to enjoy rap many times but have yet to find anything I like. My latest attempt was Kendrick Lamar but I couldn't listen all the way through. There's one exception, and that's cLOUDEAD (which is, of course, three white guys, and only adds to the idea that maybe I'm racist) I've come up with many excuses for myself about why I don't enjoy this genre, such as 1. I don't like the lyricssubject matter. (This one makes no sense because there are rap songs about many different topics). 2. Rap is too aggressive for me to enjoy. (Obviously untrue because I enjoy metal). 3. There aren't enough "pretty sounds" in rap songs and that's why I don't enjoy them (Not true, because I enjoy instrumental hip-hop and instrumentals of rap tracks). The truth seems to be that whenever I attempt to listen to rap I get really uncomfortable and need to turn it off. I'm not positive where the uncomfortable feeling comes from, but my first thought is that it's based on much of societies negative feelings towards rap music and the people who listen to it, and some kind of need to distance myself from that culture. Which would make me racist and a "race traitor," maybe. I don't want to be either of those, but can think of no other reason for being uncomfortable. Please CMV?
|
human-1310
|
cmv
|
human
|
It might just be a string of bad luck but over the years when I go on vacation, visit family, whatever the case may be I'm always harassed by the airport security. I go to the airport on average like 4 times per year and every single time I'm somehow always chosen for random screenings. I happen to be a mix of Costa Rican and Egyptian so I have an olive complexion so I look sort of arab. I feel so embarrassed and uncomfortable when they frisk me. I absolutely hate strangers touching me. I'm a law biding American citizen and I don't deserve this bullshit treatment. Just because someone looks arab doesn't make them a terrorist! I'm on my last nerve and if they so much as pick me for a random screening again I will sue the shit out of the airlines!
|
human-2982
|
cmv
|
human
|
I've had a discussion with my SO lately about children and the fact that they are no longer necessary for ones personal survival. With all the social well fare (at least here in Sweden) there is no need for me as an individual to have children. Of course I understand this can't apply to society as a whole as we need people but I don't personally need any one to take care of me when I am old as it used to be. If it is a non necessary and an active choice which it most often is then I see that it is something you want to do with your spare time. Even if it is a full time hobby it is still something you chose to do and wouldn't shorten your life span. I'm sorry for eventual spellinggrammar me being a swed and on a phone.
|
human-2196
|
cmv
|
human
|
I'm not sure this is a view that can be changed, since it is an irrational fear. However, I sure would like to change it, so let's see if it can be done. I am aware that flying is perfectly safe on an intellectual level. Certainly safer than many, if not all, other forms of travel per mile. That said, a few things have made me petrified to fly. 1.) I used to be a pilot (small, 4-seater planes) and had a near-crash experience. I was practicing engine failures with an instructor. I had selected a field where I could land if this were a real emergency. We pulled the power out. About 100 feet above the ground, my instructor informed me that I had failed the exercise as we were too far down field, and that I would hit the trees ahead of us if this were a real emergency. My instructor told me that he we were going to put the power back in and try again. However, as he put the power back in, the engine just sputtered. My instructor took the controls from me. The engine continued to sputter. My instructor then informed me that he was going to position the wings to take the brunt of the hit. At that point, I thought that was it. This is how I die. Luckily, the engine did kick back in, and it seemed like we just avoided hitting the tops of those trees. Nevertheless, that experience shook me pretty hard, and I gave up piloting soon after. 2.) I had a good friend die on a commercial flight in 2009. After his death, I imagined over and over again how he must have spent the last few minutes of his life. At one point being okay, then all of a sudden the plane going into stomach-turning up and down undulation, before finally seeing the ground approaching way too fast. I imagine how his body must have shattered upon impact his internal organs not being able to keep up with the rapid deceleration of the rest of his body, shrapnel hitting and tearing up his body, then his skeleton shattering as it hit something hard before being swallowed up by a large fire all in a moment. I don't know if this is a scientifically accurate portrayal of his death, but this is how I imagine it anyway. It haunts me. What adds to my discomfort is the FDA report on the crash. They focused on the idle banter between the pilots right before the emergency. They focus on the fact that the pilots responded incorrectly to the emergency. Very little was said about the fact that the pilots were horrifically underrested, underpaid, and overworked. That seems to be a systemic problem that they refused to address, and it shakes my confidence in the governing body of aviation, and thus aviation as a whole. 3.) I've flown on commercial flights a few times since my friend's death. Every time, I am struck by horrifying anxiety attacks. I feel closed in, trapped. I feel like I have no control. I feel like I need to get out of my seat to have some air, do something, get out of this crowded space, anything I can to have some semblance of control. I become on edge. I feel like I can't breathe. It is a very frightening experience for me. Because of these experiences I think my subconscious mind has overridden my rational mind. To me, flying is scary. Can anyone CMV on this? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1406
|
cmv
|
human
|
My perspective is that Suarez is a scumbag and a disgrace to the sport. For what it's worth, and by my own free admission, I tend to think the "honor" of a sport is more important than the average person. I really hate that taking a dive, faking an injury, and other gamesmanship techniques are not dealt with harshly. In any event, Rojas was given a lifetime ban for taking a dive (more info: ) in a game. Suarez was worse, he directly attacked another player, and has already been penalized for the exact same action. He should be thrown out forever, I don't care how talented he is. Thoughts? Edit: looks like there's a big discussion over on the [front page] Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3033
|
cmv
|
human
|
There are some words that are rather easy to misspell - you forgot whether it's one M or two in immolate, you forgot the c in acquired, you accidentally wrote "per say" instead of "per se" because you think phonetically. If you make an honest mistake, I'm not going to call you a dunce, obviously. But if you constantly misspell and have no intent of fixing it, or even no awareness that you are spelling words wrong, you're probably not very well educated, and I'm really not going to take your opinion seriously. Now, if you have a legitimate reason like a disability that simply prevents you from spelling words correctly or remembering how to spell certain words, that might not affect your overall intelligence. You may have a legitimate excuse which explains how you are both intelligent and bad at spelling. But that is the exception, not the rule. Saying you didn't study English in collegeuniversity doesn't excuse not knowing the difference between their and there. It doesn't take a goddamn English major to understand your own damn language. I feel like people only disagree with this opinion because of the very small number of individuals who have a reasonexcuse for their misspelling, not because it's false. But I also don't think a lot of people will admit to that because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. I'm also not saying dyslexic people cannot be unintelligent - they certainly can. I just want to understand why some people believe it's wrong to judge people by their bad spelling when 99 of the time it's a good method of judgment. Edit: Most people commenting have taken issue with the vagueness of "intelligence." To be more specific, I am talking about being intelligent enough to make reasonable and good judgments in most situations, not simply someone who can accomplish a variety of tasks or complete one task very well. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-4196
|
cmv
|
human
|
In order to win an argument, you don't need to be right. You only need to change the oppositions mind, or opinion. Sure, being right helps, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to win the argument. You don't need to be right to win. (necessary) Being right does not guarantee winning. (sufficient)
|
human-3112
|
cmv
|
human
|
Assumptions Age of consent is based around the understanding that we are protecting children who lack life experience to make a "fully informed" decision. This age represents a point in time where we believe people have reached a level of understanding in the world to engage in this behavior and make a "fully informed decision." Age is a very poor marker of intellectual maturity. Most people are able to make informed decisions about their sexuality much earlier than the age of consent. This is the point of contention. Supporters of the law claim there is "knowledge asymmetry." A 35 year old man knows how to manipulate a 16 year old better than an 18 year old would (if they were attempting to be predatory). But is this behavior truly predatory? The reason why we view this behavior as predatory is bias. When we see an attractive female teacher sleeping with a young male, there are cries to punish this person but mostly for reasons rooted in fairness in the legal system. On a whole, most males would not view this as predatory behavior. We didn't sleep with attractive teachers at that age because we didn't have the chance. Yet, when we reverse those rolls, this view immediately changes. Why is this? Most sexual contact is initiated by a male Most sexual events include at least some resistance This courting process serves an evolutionary purpose, for the male to demonstrate to the female he is a worthy mate. From a puritan point of view then, males that can handle objections and easily overcome sexual objections are acting in a predatory manor. From the female perspective, this male demonstrates confidence above and beyond what her peers may be able to. So the morality or basis of this law hinges on an assumption (bias) that young women don't really want to engage in sex with older men. They're being coerced into it. And even if they wanted to, "they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves." Justifications made from the legislativeparental side I determine the life choices my child makes, because they are not a legal adult My child does not own his or her body, and is not entitled to make choices regarding it without my permission until they are a legal adult My child would not violate age of consent laws, because I am a good parent and will teach them not to violate the law. My child would not violate age of consent laws because they are taught to wait to engage in intercourse. My child would not violate age of consent laws because they do not want to have sex at this age. If my child violates age of consent laws, they should be punished for existing as a sexual being when I designate they should not be, and they do not have the right to choose to use their body in that way. If someone violates age of consent laws with my child, they should be punished because 1) There is asymmetric knowledge (predatory behavior) 2) They are disregarding the law (circular justification) Logic that follows These laws are passed with two actual purposes To enforce the views of a sexually conservative population. To punish "predatory" behavior We don't view similarly aged sexual actors as acting predatory because they don't have knowledge asymmetry, or it is limited. So we give them "Romeo Juliet" laws. We're really just left with "predatory behavior." Which is denying some male and female actors under the age of consent the ability to use their body in a way they feel fit. To have a relationship with someone who they choose to have it with. In female teachermale student cases we can see most men don't really consider this to be problematic. Surely some view it as predatory, most consider it just a legal issue. So really then, we're enforcing a moral judgement. That old men shouldn't sleep with young girls. And that young girls (if they were fully informed) wouldn't want to sleep with older men. I disagree at this point of contention, and use this to assert these laws exist for only two real reasons. 1) Enforce sexually conservative values 2) Punish old men for sleeping with younger girls (which is justified by desexualizing females, point one explained in detail earlier) eg. My daughter would not break the law My daughter doesn't want to have sex, My daughter wouldn't choose to have sex with an older man if she was fully informed If she does want to she should be punished for breaking the law If she did, he tricked her into it, she couldn't have wanted to have sex with him. He should be punished. Looking back in time, would you date the people you dated when you were young? Probably not. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have. You simply made life choices and learned from them. Your perspective of what you want also changed over time. But at the time you certainly wanted to. So at the heart of all of this you're criminalizing poor decisions which are used to gain life experience while trying to enforce sexually conservative values while doing little if anything to stop what this is all really about. Kids having sex Sleazing old people sleeping with young children Rather than responsible older people being sexual partners in these scenarios, we now have mostly low life criminal types. You haven't solved the problem, you've made it worse. These laws must confront reality. That people have sex, at a much younger age than you want them to. With all different people of varying levels of age and life experiance. And that it's not a bad thing. And that we should setup a system that protects young people who are not able to make life decisions yet, in a method that allows them to sunset these protections when they feel they are ready and can demonstrate the capacity to make such a decision. Age is a poor method. If such a method was an accurate determiner of ability to make proper decisions we wouldn't need a driving test. But you need to both pass a formalized test and test of your life experience to do such a thing. Certainly the ability to understand the ramifications of sex is something easy to test for, no different than the objective testing of "driving ability." Such a thing should exist for age of consent. Because otherwise you're merely justifying a reason for the state to have authority over someone's body, which should never be allowed except to protect that person. To force that person to abstain from behavior they are capable of making a decision on rationally under the basis that you are "protecting" them is in my opinion an egregious violation of their civil liberties. Cases in point. There are pre-pubescent children who have attended Ivy League universities. These children are likely much more informed at their age than the average 18 year old. To deny them the ability to make choices about their body is wrong. There are people above the age of consent who lack a total ability to make informed choices. It is my understanding it is not against the law to sleep with mentally retarded people. Clearly a mentally retarded person would demonstrate the highest level of knowledge asymmetry. I conclude that age of consent exists primarily to enforce conservative sexual values, when it's aim should instead of to protect those unable to make a decision while allowing them a way to opt outsunset these protections. This protects children while allowing us to respect the rights of those to own their bodies when they are capable of understanding the ramifications of conduct. To "protect" them for even a day longer than they need this is immoral.
|
human-3452
|
cmv
|
human
|
With black friday coming up, I thought this would be a fun topic to discuss. Ethical consumerism is a type of consumer activism that is based on the concept of dollar voting. It is practiced through 'positive buying' in that ethical products are favored, or 'moral boycott', that is negative purchasing and company-based purchasing. In practice, we can view something like "Green sourcing" as an example of this behavior. You go to buy a given good, and find two choices- one of which is slightly more expensive than the other, but promises that it was produced using "Sustainable forestry" or the like. Now, there are several problems with this. First of all, given that the "Green" option is more expensive at no actual added utility to the end-user, such consumerism is limited more to higher-income people who often buy not just for utility, but for cosmetic luxury and an appearance of being environmentally-friendly. In practice, this means that ethical consumerism is, at best, a mostly-irrelevant niche market, a lonely island in a sea of unethical behavior. Secondly, it puts the impetus on the consumer, not on the corporation to determine the responsible use of resources. A common argument used by libertarians is that issues like climate change and the globalized exploitation of sweatshop labor are self-limiting problems, as people will generally prefer the more humanitarian purchase. In practice, ethical consumerism is used as an excuse to abolish democratically-implemented regulations, leaving huge questions- the environment, workers rights, and the like to the will of a system that inherently values profit over superficial "ethics." Whether or not Florida is sunk by rising sea levels is not a triviality that should be left to making sure you buy the right soy sauce. Similarly, whether or not an employee is treated well should not hang on purchasing the right iphone case- these are things that should be ensured by the democratic process, and capitalism should work around those rules. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3290
|
cmv
|
human
|
Frankly discussing the causes, effects and potential remedies of the obesity epidemic often gets derailed because someone starts worrying who might take offense. Same goes for race relations and anything related to women. Shutting down the discussion because someone might cry about it or shaping the whole debate to not step on toes is intellectually dishonest. Anyone who comes in and starts talking about who might be offended is doing everyone a disservice because ultimately those feelings are only slightly relevant to the issue at hand, be it obesity, rape, racism, or whatever else gets people up in arms. I truly think it is the sign of an enlightened mind to be able to weigh an idea strictly on its merits, and to entertain it without necessarily agreeing with it. Feelings act as philosophical blinders to keep thought in line with mass appeal. That can't be a good thing. CMV
|
human-1820
|
cmv
|
human
|
Sorry for the long title but I think all of these events will all happen in tandem as a larger structural social change in relationships between men and women. Here is overall what I think will happen. I apologize, this will be long. I have sources below. We are already seeing online dating become the "normal" way to meet people, but in 15-20 it will be the ONLY way that is acceptable by society to meet people. Sorta like how when women go out with each other on a "girls night out," they don't want men approaching them. It will be like that, but everywhere. Everyone will be expected to "meet" online before actually going on a date in person. Right now, we already know how loopsided online dating is, even though it's becoming the "normal" way to date, as far as the number of messages women get versus how much they actually reply to (less than 1 maybe). So most guys already hate online dating and regard it as a waste of time but just do it because it's "easy." I expect this dynamic not to change at all over the next 10 while online dating slowly completely takes over with a few giants like facebook or google becoming the dominant players in online dating. Just like now how pretty much everybody has a facebook profile, everybody will have a online dating profile to check to indicate their relationship status and will be used to find dates. Now after the 10 year mark of this dating transformation (moving to completely online), there will actually start to be a huge decline in the male user base, due to the frustration that most men can't get dates online and it is now impossible to get dates in real life either since that is not an option due to the social stigma of approaching women. Online dating sites will actually start having a loopsided userbase where it is vastly female dominated, at about 5:1 female:male ratio. Slowly, over the next 5 years, prostitution services will see a huge boom in business, and will start moving to accommodate. A few years after the prostitution boom, along site of the normal female dominated online dating sites, there will be an equivalent "dating service" for all of these men, at a price, that will still be prostitution at it's core, but more like escorts or temporary girlfriends. Not the 10,000night escorts that politicians use, but more like the 200weekend type escort girls. In 20-30 years, there will be tons of these services around, and most guys will just sign up for these and just pay for "weekend girlfriends" instead of joining the actually dating sites. This will become completely normal, while the top 10 of attractive guys and rich guys stay on the dating sites where there are an abundance of women who will datesleep with them. This, of course, will cause a big population bust in the far future. As for women, a lot will stay on the dating sites and cycle through the 10 of guys on there, but a lot will just go into prostitution due to the boom of the industry. Yes this future of society sounds dystopian, so CMV. Sources:
|
human-3342
|
cmv
|
human
|
Wars, or armed conflicts in general, are a cause of huge suffering and only minor conflicts could exist without military. Therefore, I see people who are involved in military as terrorists. By military, I refer to any organization which deals with weapons and related technology, not necessarily a national army - an actual so called "terrorist organization," for example, is also a military unit, albeit possibly small. A pro-military argument would be, that it is protecting me. But protecting me from who? From other armies. And in fact, other nations' armies are in theory protecting their citizens from my nations army - even though my country (Czechia) is quite peaceful at the moment. So when I say that I despise people working for military, I'm not talking about military people worldwide. Not only soldiers, but anyone who knowingly and willingly cooperates with them. Please note: I'm not saying anything like that a certain nation should shut down it's military. I'm realistic and understand that making a country defenseless in today's world may be a rather stupid idea. But that does not make my feelings about the people who work for military any better. Please CMV, because some of my friends are involved in that shit. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3159
|
cmv
|
human
|
It seems to me that our legal system is built on a capitalistic model. If a lawyer is really good with a proven track record they can charge more money than other lawyers who don't have such a good record. This seems to indicate to me that the people who can hire these more expensive lawyers are increasing their odds that they will have a more favorable outcome of any litigation. Say someone is being sued by someone else who has a lot of money and they hire a lawyer who has won 95 of his cases and with the first person who can't afford such a high caliber lawyer, wouldn't the odds be slightly in favor of the more seasoned lawyer with a proven track record? I would like to not believe this, so please help me change my view. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3774
|
cmv
|
human
|
The upvote system is already pretty damn good. It's the most democratic way of regulating content. When a moderator deletes something with a large amount of upvotes, they're essentially saying "Fuck you, I know better," to every user of the sub. The occasional extreme case I'm borderline about, like how ratheism became full of edgy teenagers. Even then I realize it was just a matter of my taste being more in-line with the moderators than the majority of users. Moderation in cases like this is simply the few forcing their views on the many. Edit: Clarification on what kind of moderation I think is ok removing nsfw content when it is not appropriate to the board removing illegal content policing argumentspersonal attacks between users that aren't on topic removing spam policing the voting system and checking for fraud removing unrelated content from the sub, ie. a post about model trains in a bicycling sub redirecting content to provide the best user experience, for example if a sub about pianos is flooded with pictures of cats on pianos, it could all be redirected to a single thread Moderation I disapprove of: deleting content that is within the spirit of the sub, fosters interesting discussion, and is approved of by the majority of the community
|
human-1272
|
cmv
|
human
|
Edit: Rather than push specifically for a "German-style" healthcare system, I believe progressives should push for a "Bismarck" system drawing from either the German or Japanese models (and potentially the Swiss model) Despite being the most expensive healthcare system in the world, the U.S. model consistently ranks near the bottom in international comparisons with wealthy economies on most measures of performance. These include access, quality, and equity. The Affordable Care Act attempted to jerry-rig our system by building off our third party, employer-based model through mandates, regulations, and a Medicaid expansion. However, although Obamacare was an improvement over the previous system, and it has improved access and equity, our system is far from ideal. As many as 31 million Americans are expected to remain uninsured by 2024. The ACA tinkers around the edges when it comes to controlling costs, and shifting from "fee-for-service" to "fee-for-outcomes" has slowed the rate of healthcare inflation. Medicare is being used as a lever to cut costs with the hope that the private sector will follow. However, none of the cost-cutting mechanisms in the ACA can capitalize on the power of economies of scale, nor can they yield lower prices or massive reductions in administrative overhead. The ACA utilizes a conservative, market-based approach to healthcare that ties coverage to jobs and income. Insurance companies have been supportive of the ACA, because it mandates people to purchase their services, generating corporate profits for the industry. Medical bankruptcy continues to be an issue for people who can afford to purchase care, but can't afford to actually utilize care. Employers, particularly small business, are also cash strapped due to the healthcare costs associated with covering employees. The American health care remains a byzantine, inhumane, unsustainable, and expensive mess. It's even more byzantine now, but the ACA addresses the rest of those nasty adjectives to varying degrees. In my view, the optimal solution would be a single-payer system where we expand Medicare coverage to every single American, largely making private insurance largely obsolete. We would have government-funded healthcare, but not government-run healthcare (nonprofit hospitals and for-profit clinics would still be in the private sector). I'm personally not a fan of the socialized healthcare systems in the UK, Spain, New Zealand, etc., because I feel government-run hospitals tend to be more inefficient than private-sector counterparts. Public sector delivery sometimes require the rationing of care, causing longer wait times. Instead, I look to the successes of France, Canada, and Taiwan in their socialized funding of healthcare, but privatized delivery of healthcare. "Medicare-for-All" would be much more efficient than the existing system: overhead and administrative costs would be dramatically cut since private health insurance would largely cease to exist (if it existed, private plans would be for supplemental, non-essential care). By eliminating the profit-motive in the health insurance industry, companies wouldn't spend as much money in marketing and advertising, and trying to gain enough money to pay company executives and dividends payout to shareholders. The single-payer system could utilize its extensive bargaining power to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, medical services, and medical devices. All while improving preventative care, eliminating medical bankruptcy, providing high-quality care that survives job loss, and lowering production costs for businesses. Heck, employers would prefer to get out of the healthcare industry completely, and focus on their core competence, which is not healthcare management. Income taxes would go up, but we'd still be paying less for healthcare than what we pay in co-pays, deductibles, and premiums. Healthcare outcomes for society would improve a lot, since everyone's in, and no one's out. However, President Obama has made a case against single-payer healthcare that's important to acknowledge. Obama admits that other advanced countries have benefited greatly from single-payer models, and if he were designing the U.S. system from scratch, he would probably design a single-payer system. However, we aren't building a system from scratch, and people are accustomed to getting insurance from their employers. And our health insurance industry is a massive employer. It would take a long time for us to transition without any negative economic repercussions. There are jobs at stake: people make a living off the complexities of our multi-payer systems. People would literally have to be retrained to take different jobs. Ideally, we could provide vouchers for education and training for people who lost their healthcare administration jobs. However, it would take a lot of political courage and cooperation, and people would need to get on board with the idea that "we'll suffer greatly in the short term, and yes, many people will lose jobs in short term, but we'll be much better off than before in the long term. Job losses are a short-term problem compared to the long-term problem of healthcare costs." Given that people think in the short-term, transitioning from our employer-based model directly to single-payer would be an extremely tough sell. We've historically had a tradition of people getting their insurance from HMOs and PPOs, and rich people have excellent private-sector healthcare, so people may not have an appetite for rapid transformation, even though single-payer healthcare is popular in opinion polls. However, there are alternative health care models that offer universal coverage. It's not an eitheror situation where it's either an inhumane system or single-payer. I think it's disheartening than the Bismarck model hasn't entered the progressive political consciousness in the U.S. yet. It has much of the efficiency and private centers of care delivery and insurance that "single payer" contains, and includes the benefits of universal coverage and effective cost containment. Given the large population of the U.S., a Bismarck system may be both more efficient and more likely than single-payer in the current climate. In a country with 300 million people like the U.S., you very quickly hit the point where risk advantage plateaus (ie adding another person to a pool will not reduce the average risk premium). Instead of asking specifically for single-payer, we should ask simply for a high-performance universal system. And we should leave the payment system open to whatever would best fit the desired attributes of the new system. A German multi-payer system would be far easier to sell politically to Americans given how much closer it is to our current model than Canada's system. The differences between the American and German systems are less striking than the similarities. Transitioning to the Bismarck model from the current U.S. system would definitely be manageable. In Bismarck systems (Germany and Japan), you have mostly privatized delivery (private sector hospitals and clinics) and privatized insurance systems. Insurance companies are mostly mandated to be non-profit entities that provide comprehensive coverage. Since there's no no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, Biskmark insurance programs tend to be cheaper than American-style for-profit insurance. Insurance in Germany and Japan is funded by employees and employers. This is a similarity the U.S. system shares with the German and Japanese models. In Japan, employers offer healthcare, just like they do in the U.S. (however employment and healthcare are decoupled in Germany). In Japan, local governments cover those who are unemployed or too poor to purchase insurance themselves. Opt-outs in Germany are often available for the top 10 of income earners so they can purchase plans with wider coverage than standard sickness funds but which are more expensive. In Germany, benchmarks on prices for procedures and medication are negotiated between government, industry and insurers on a mostly annual basis. The sickness funds pay physicians and hospitals uniform rates that are negotiated annually. This is called "all-payer rate setting" where insurers bind together to jointly negotiate prices for prescription drugs, medical procedures, etc., and largely emulates the bargaining power and economies of scale we see under single-payer systems. There are therefore mechanisms built into the Biskmarck system for efficient care delivery, multiple mechanisms for cost control, both through negotiation and consumer choice, and also mandates for universal coverage. Despite a lot of similarities between the Bismarck and American systems that would allow for a smooth transition from the latter to the former in the U.S., the differences between Bismarck and ACA are fairly dramatic. ACA leaves for-profit insurance in place and it has far fewer mechanisms for cost containment. The ACA gives us with subsidized, regulated, for-profit insurance companies in the place of heavily regulated not-for-profit sickness funds. Moreover, the insurance system the ACA envisions is still far more fragmented than in Bismarck systems, which leads to dramatically persistent cost-shifting. A chief problem with the American chimera is that it relies on employment being more stable and universal than it is likely to be in our future. As mentioned before, people's quality of care is tied to their jobs and incomes. Sure, people who lose their jobs can opt for subsidized plans on state and federal healthcare exchanges. If they are poor, they can apply for Medicaid in states that have expanded it. If they are over 65, they get enrolled in Medicare (a program they paid into via payroll taxes). If they are veterans, they benefit from the VA system (which resembles Britain's socialized system). Yes, people are "mandated" to get care, and if they can't afford it, they can opt out via a hardship exemption. But although "healthcare" survives job loss in the U.S., the quality of healthcare declines when your income declines, since you can't afford as comprehensive plans. However, unlike in the U.S., coverage in the German Bismarck system (not Japanese system) is portable between jobs, as the sickness funds are nationally valid. Coverage is available to full and part-time workers as well as to guest workers. Unemployed worker coverage does not change, their premium contributions are paid by federally administered statutory unemployment insurance during the term of unemployment. This is a huge advantage over the American system. Medical school is largely free in Bismarck systems (and under singler-payer systems), and doctors don't acquire massive debt to get their degrees. Tuition free medical school in Germany is largely financed through higher income taxes. Moreover, doctors benefit from strong tort laws. Physicians under socialized systems (Britain, Spain, etc), single-payer systems (Taiwan, Canada), and Bismarck systems (Germany and Japan) are definitely paid less than their counterparts in America, but it's a good trade off overall, and their livelihoods are still very good compared to the average worker. My hope is that Obamacare will come to more closely resemble a Bismarck model (either Japan or Germany) over time. It seems reasonable, at least, to expect that stronger cost control mechanisms will evolve from what the ACA initiates. The Bismarck system was established through a patchwork of legislation: it is chiefly a product of the payment mechanisms that existed in each country prior to the reforms that created a national system of coverage. The fact that a system which was not originally designed to cover everyone has become one that can means that there is at least hope that non-ideal things, through whatever confused and muddled process, can be made better over time.
|
human-2197
|
cmv
|
human
|
While I admit I do not have a strong passion for the arts, that's not to say I don't enjoy looking at or listening to them. I also understand that historically there have long been "patrons" of the arts. However, I do not see any reason why the giving of money to the "arts" (for example, any of various local or national theaters, orchestras, the National Endowment for the Arts) should be considered giving money to those in need and grouped together with any of a slew of social services that are provided and similarly labeled charity (such as providing food, shelter, mental help, financial assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves, etc.). Rather, to me, doing something like "donating" to a theater on top of purchasing tickets seems almost the same as paying a store owner extra for a product, or a masseuse extra for a massage. It's nice, but to me just doesn't seem like "charity." I can see that culture (which art is related to) has some sort of in-definable value to societies, and in that sense, can see how it might be something undervalued by many individuals in a sort of "free-rider" way, but still am having trouble understanding why it's considered charity. Can you help me change my view, or at least begin to understand the other side of this discussion?
|
human-1839
|
cmv
|
human
|
I hate this opinion, and I don't want to have it, but I'm afraid I'm stuck in a rut that is possibly caused by me being raised in a hotbed of racism (the American South). I'm white, and I have a crush on someone who is black. He's amazing, and I personally don't believe there are any inherent deficiencies in someone based on their raceskin color. But part of me wonders if, given the discrimination that still exists in our society, procreating with someone who is white is justified, because you want your kids to have every advantage, right? I KNOW I'm wrong because it's just an awful thing to say or think, but I cannot figure out why. Please help?
|
human-4054
|
cmv
|
human
|
In many countries the ears,nose and other body parts of children are pierced for various reasons by parents. It is especially true when it comes to girl children. I think it should be a personal decision of a person once heshe reaches a certain age. One of my colleagues mentioned that girls without ear piercing look unfeminine. I don't think these reasons and other social, religious reasons should make piercing in kids normal. Edit: I just want to clarify that my main argument is against toddlers getting pierced. I am sorry for not being more clear. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3308
|
cmv
|
human
|
Hey, everybody! Sexless Saturday is over. This was an experiment we tried after we felt [Genderless January] gave the subreddit a much needed [break] from saturation of gender-issue topics. Unfortunately, in our eyes, it turned out that a one-day break from these topics provided minimal reprieve and only served to frustrate or annoy posters while congesting the moderation queue. Therefore, we will no longer be doing Sexless Saturday, and normal posting on the weekend will resume. We're also interested in your feedback. This is mostly constrained to the things you liked or didn't like about Sexless Saturday, but we'll certainly listen to any other constructive comments you have. For background, [here] are all of the Sexless Saturday announcement threads. Finally, hot button and current event issues are something we struggle dealing with, as we understand that flooding a subreddit can decrease enjoyment, but we also want to moderate with as light a touch as possible. We would appreciate feedback on the extent to which users enjoy talking about whatever is dominating the news (or reddit), versus more obscure, fresh or diversified topics. Additionally, suggestions for practical rules to deal with repeat topics and posts about what is dominating the news would be appreciated. For example, how do you feel about moratoriums in general? Are you annoyed when a topic has an influx of posts? If you support some kind of moratorium, what format would you like? If not, do you have any ideas for alternatives? This is just a brainstorming stage and we might not settle on anything at the moment, but we are looking to our users for thoughts and ideas since you're the people this is going to affect the most as we try to preserve the character of rchangemyview. As always, please feel free to leave any other comments or ask questions. Sincerely, CMV Mod Team
|
human-2753
|
cmv
|
human
|
I have grown up wealthy and i can not imagine ever being satisfied with my life if i do not grow up to be wealthy. I dont think i could ever be satisfied with out money.CMV
|
human-1111
|
cmv
|
human
|
Humans have existed for tens of thousands of years before forming the first semblances of civilization. For the majority of that time, people, when confronted with people who are different, have this thought chain: (enemy tribe) (threat) (kill) Humans are civilized now, which is wonderful, but if placed under extreme duress, our dumb human brains will resort to the same caveman thought pattern (enemy tribe) (threat) (kill) The recent Ferguson issue has raised questions about how officers treat threatening individuals of different races. Officer Wilson may have used prejudice when under duress and reacting to Michael Brown, but it probably was unconscious instead of conscious. Had Brown been white, the officer might have treated him as one of his "tribe," but he didn't. There will always be deep-seated, mutual distrust between people who are of different races. It's not a white and black problem. It is a human problem with white and black consequences. America is the greatest experiment in multiculturalism in the history of humanity. The events in Ferguson have led me to doubt that things are going so well. I don't think this is a healthy view, so I'd like to hear what people have to say. EDIT- "how" EDIT2- I guess I should have said "racial harmony" instead of "multiculturalism" EDIT3- Hey everyone. Thanks for all the comments and the lively discussion! Keep in mind, I was not originally advocating for racial separation. I guess I just had these questions in the back of my head, and I wanted to see what folks had to say. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1059
|
cmv
|
human
|
Talent shows generally disappoint me because I believe that the general public lacks the ability to properly assess how talented performers are. The average audience member likely does not have a strong background in music theory or knows the technical aspects of ballet dancing. Therefore, the public will vote in performers whom it finds "entertaining." Acts the public considers entertaining tend to appeal to mainstream tastes, provide instant gratification, are easily digestible, and are fast-paced. I'm not saying that acts shouldn't have these qualities; it's true that mainstream acts are better equipped to grab people's attention. However, characteristics that make a performer entertaining are distinct from the characteristics that make a performer talented. And much of the time, the audience is unable to distinguish between the two. I have an anecdote to illustrate my point. During my senior year of high school, my best friend participated in our school talent show and performed Franz Liszt's "Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2" on the piano. Classical musicians are well aware of the sheer talent it takes to even attempt to play such a piece. It requires extreme technical precision and contains many passages that are intricate and require a strong knowledge of music theory and practical skill to pull of successfully. My friend had been studying classical piano for 10 years and had practiced the piece for six months before she performed it for the talent show (she was practicing it for her audition for Juilliard, into which she was ultimately accepted). However, she only won fourth place in the talent show. The first place winner was some guy I knew who only picked up guitar several months prior to the show. He performed an acoustic guitar medley of various Lady Gaga songs. While I wouldn't say his performance was necessarily bad, from a talent perspective, it didn't even come close to my best friend's performance. I understand why he won: his act was digestible, provided instant gratification, appealed to mainstream tastes (the audience recognized the songs he played), and was fast-paced. But as a musician myself, I could tell that he had shoddy technique and from a musical perspective, he wasn't particularly talented. There are other examples like this too...on America's Got Talent, there was a group that did jazz dance, and their dancers were extremely skilled and performed a lot of very difficult and intricate stuff. However, the judges found the performance to be too "slow-paced" and "boring" and "outdated," and preferred a hip-hop group that danced to modern pop songs. It was also hilarious because the judges acted as if they knew what they were talking about and were experts in what constituted high quality dance acts. Regardless of whether the hip-hop group was talented, the disrespect the judges had for the jazz group was uncalled for. It seems to me that in order to properly assess an act's talent, one needs to go out of his or her way to be open minded, mature, and objective. And unfortunately, most of the time, audience members lack the tools to be objective. They aren't knowledgeable enough in art to mentally separate what they find entertaining and pleasurable from what requires talent to pull off. For example, they will not vote for a "boring, slow-paced" classical piece that is intricate over a simple, repetitive pop song. They tend to be lazy in their voting, and vote based on impulse, and prefer stuff that they are familiar with. This makes "talent shows" less about talent and more about who or what is popular.
|
human-2173
|
cmv
|
human
|
You may have seen recent viral video that aims to fight street harassment: "10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" While there are some instances of harassment in that video, I think that calling compliments and greetings "harassment" serves nobody: 1. It is not respectful to real victims of harassment, because it trivializes the issue. 2. It disrupts normal social dynamics between people. 3. It is not in the interest of women that want to meet somebody that men are being discouraged to approach them. 4. It will not deter creepy guys from harassing women, because apparently they don't have any problem even with real harassment. [Radical feminists think that approaching a woman you don't know should automatically be characterized as harassment.] That is the most counterproductive and retarded way to deal with the problem of harassment the world has ever seen. - P.S.: Because I was so astounded by the stupidity of this video I made a parody video, featuring Pepe Le Pew . If you want to see some real harassment, watch a few Pepe Le Pew cartoons. P.P.S.: A reply I made to a girl commenting on YouTube: I have already retracted this statement; see the discussion. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1339
|
cmv
|
human
|
As a straight man who got married about a year and a half ago, I think it's ridiculous how many hoops the gov't (U.S.) makes you jump through to get married. I commonly hear gay marriage advocates saying "get gov't out of our bedroom." I think this is looking at the problem backwards. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't take gov't out of their bedrooms. It does the complete opposite. I believe we need to remove the gov't from regulating marriage. Then the state will be out of all our bedrooms. Change my view.
|
human-3076
|
cmv
|
human
|
I find atheists, taken as a group, tend to be socially progressive in a lot of meaningful ways. That said, I feel like irreligion is sometimes mistaken for "objectivity" in a moral sense. I'm speaking specifically of the far right wing portion of atheism. The folks who use pseudo-science to support ideas of white supremacy, patriarchy, climate change denial and the like. The sort of folks who define themselves as "Anti-SJW" and smugly trumpet atheism as the only true path to enlightenment. I think it's important to recognize the force of humanitarianism behind great social movements- The Civil Rights Act, which abolished segregation, was argued for in both secular and religious terms and Martin Luther King Jr., by all accounts, was no atheist. I, personally, am a unitarian universalist- a church that has repeatedly spoken out on behalf of LGBT people, on behalf of people of color, on the behalf of women's rights, et cetera. Ultimately, I think humanitarianism is far more important that religious affiliation for this reason. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1692
|
cmv
|
human
|
This is one of those interesting gray topics. I dont think Turks should be considered Europeans because the Turkic people are their own thing. Europe for the most part is Indo-European stock, a massive and varied family of languages that Turkish is not a part of. Furthermore, Turkish people can't be considered middle eastern either. Their culture and language are distinct. Sure, the Ottomans ruled parts of Europe and the Middle East, but so to did the Mughals (a Turkic empire) rule India. This does not make them Indian. I think Turkish people are not European or Middle Eastern, but part of their own subset of humanity. Also due to Turkey's geographic location, being situated literally as a bridge between regions, Turkey is its own thing, not a part of Europe or the Middle East. In previous empires, it held parts of Europe and the Middle East, but present day Turkey is a part of neither region. CMV.
|
human-2911
|
cmv
|
human
|
I have done my research. I think that Japan's war crimes are just as horrific as Germany's. I'm an American, and culturally Jewish, religiously atheist. I think that if the Holocaust is going to be taught in public schools, then so should Japanese war crimes, because although they were a little further from home for us Americans, a select few neutral articles were enough to persuade me that they were horrible during WWII.
|
human-3820
|
cmv
|
human
|
As long as we have the option to downvote, at least some portion of the reddit population IS going to use it to downvote posts they just don't agree with. The posts of people who disagree with that method are always going to be at a disadvantage and so, Reddit might as well try to find a way to embrace that tendency or make peace with it. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2760
|
cmv
|
human
|
We aren't exactly in top condition right now, shouldn't we worry about ourselves before we spend tons of money sending troops into other countries? Won't it completely mess up the culture of other countries if we don't let them grow at their own rate?
|
human-3044
|
cmv
|
human
|
my position is that reality follows phisics without exception therefor all action in reality are a reaction of different effects comming together. for example, if we roll a dice, the idea that the result is random can only be maintained if we are ignorant to all the variables applied to the dice, if we where to know them with precision, we could predict exactly how the dice would land, rejecting the idea of randomness. I believe the same applies to free-will, I think that our mental proceses are ruled by chemistry, which is also an exact science (assuming we have all variables) our decision to take certain actions or think certain thoughts is one predisposed by those variables, and that we cannot do otherwise. so I think reality and everything that exists in it is preordained since the beguinning of time, just like a rock falling in a vaccum has no choice as to which forces affect it and what direction it moves in this variables include everyting from the chemistry of our brains to the physics of our atoms, to our perspective of reality, and social preasure.
|
human-2907
|
cmv
|
human
|
Natural M-W says natural has over a dozen definitions look it up] . Natural bread contains high fructose corn syrup, a natural ingredient. This is true for some other food ingredients and processed, highly unnatural foods and food products. Homosexuality is or is not natural, depending on who you talk to. There are other morally objectionable or not objectionable behaviors etc that are natural or unnatural, depending on who you talk to. Evolution and adaptation cause the word itself to change meaning over time. The word basically means "derived from nature," but people have a variety of ideas about what is and what is not natural. I'm not saying the word's definition is completely subjective, I'm saying it conveys no meaning. The best example is probably food labeling; natural products have become unnatural despite their packaging claims. Change my view! Edit: This is a fun, fascinating subreddit.
|
human-1366
|
cmv
|
human
|
I do not feel that the Captain did anything wrong morally. He has no moral duty to sacrifice himself for the people on the ship. There is a post on the front page now about a women who stayed on the ship and saved people while the captain got off. That is without a doubt admirable and I'm sure there were many people like her, and they should be given all the praise in the world. However, the Captain shouldn't be insulted etc for simply saving his own life. In regards to the legal side of a captains duties, I do not know if it includes staying on the ship and being the last man off. If this is the case, then this rule is wrong. CMV
|
human-2634
|
cmv
|
human
|
Welcome to TCMV Tuesday, our weekly post where we can celebrate our ability to adopt a new mindset or gain another perspective. Tell us what experiences you've had outside our subreddit, either recently or in your lifetime, that made you think "This Changed My View." Give us your stories in the comments! You can consider these questions to help get you thinking: Known or met someone with an interesting ideology or opinion that caused you to reconsider your own? Had an experience, good or bad, that changed your perspective? Learned something new that challenged what you believed? Ever have your tastes or interests changed? Read an article or seen a video that got you thinking differently? And just as a reminder, comment discussions here are not debate-oriented, so there's no obligation to take opposing sides in conversations here (in other words, Rule 1 does not apply here).
|
human-1497
|
cmv
|
human
|
The reason for the distinction of Canadian cigarettes is because the only additive in them is potassium nitrate, and that is in the paper. Ideally, I roll my own. Though, I don't mind a pre-rolled if it is offered. Nicotine has specific and strong effects on the central nervous system. Are they worth the tar and such from smoking? Which takes 24-hours to clear from the lungs. I think so. Please note: The view is about cigarette smoke. Not e-cigarettes.
|
human-2113
|
cmv
|
human
|
When it comes to digital content, content creators put in a high amount of effort to produce it, and it is a career for many. In a professional setting, this can become very expensive. This digital content must generate revenue in some way to pay for its production and pay those that worked on it so they can support themselves and their families. Piracy is not exactly stealing. While it is true that you are "taking a product without paying for it," you aren't removing from a supposed inventory-the producer isn't losing anything except the theoretical possibility that you may or may not have purchased it legitimately. Piracy cuts into revenue as people realize they do not need to pay for something to receive it, and instead find a way to acquire it for free. But it is not entirely theft, as you are not costing them any resources by illegally acquiring a copy of their digital product. They are not losing any tangible good or funds directly from your torrent download. Ads are another way to monetize digital content. Content distributors realize people hate paying for things, so they are monetized with ads. Ads, while annoying, enable free distribution of content in which all parties benefit. Free content for the user, advertiser receives attention, distributor receives payment. This worked well for a while, until ad blocking software began growing. As the usage of ad blocking software grows every year, ad supported networks begin to fail. Joystiq, despite seeing significant growth in traffic, was recently shut down due to producing less revenue as a result of ad blocking software, resulting in many employees losing their jobs. With ad blocking software, you aren't just acquiring content for free, thus preventing monetization, but you're costing resources while providing nothing in return. Maintaining a network and distributing content is expensive, and content distributors charge by the Gigabyte. By streaming a video while utilizing ad blocking software, companies are losing money. In some ways, by preventing the monetization of a website, while consuming resources, ad blocking software is more detrimental to a producer and distributor than simply pirating the content via a torrent. There are some exceptions to both cases in which it may be moral to do either -You pirate content you cannot legally acquire in your country (often due to licencing issues) -You pirate content to try it out, and later purchase it if you like it -You use adblock by default for protection, but disable it on sites that deliver ads in a non obstructive manner. In theory, if the usage of ad-blocking software continues, we may see a trend of microtransaction based web-content begin to grow-it works well in mobile apps games, it could theoretically hit social media. Imagine being limited to 10 comments a day, or being able to pay to refill them. This could in theory become a reality once the usage of adblock rises to a rate in which ads no longer generate revenue that pays for server costs and employees.
|
human-3286
|
cmv
|
human
|
Climate-change advocacy focuses almost exclusively on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That just amounts to making it worse more slowly, which is still making it worse. Of course we should cut emissions, to avoid make the solution (whatever it might be) harder than it already is. But we shouldn't pretend that making it worse more slowly is a solution. Adaptation will be part of the response too. We're changing the climate, and we're going to have to adjust to the results. But again, it's not exactly a solution. We can do better. Then there's geoengineering. That currently comes in two flavors: decreasing absorption of sunlight at Earth's surface, and removing some CO2 from the atmosphere. Both are plausible options, and should be researched much more than they are now, and put in place where and as they're cost-effective. But there's a third geoengineering option, which gets no attention: fussing with winds and ocean currents. And my hunch is that the third option will be better. Weather is chaotic. It's unpredictable, over a time scale longer than a couple weeks. It's not just that it's a huge computing challenge. It is a huge computing challenge: the sheer amount of data needed is so large that we have to leave out a lot of detail that does matter. But computers have improved to the point where weather forecasts are pretty good over the time range where they're possible. The computing task is daunting, but that's not why it's impossible to forecast weather beyond a couple weeks. It's impossible to forecast weather beyond a couple weeks because, given two slightly-different initial states of the atmosphere (and distribution of ocean-surface temperature, and of temperature and moisture on the ground, but for simplicity let's just call it "states of the atmosphere, the difference in the resulting states of the atmosphere grows exponentially with time. It's the proverbial butterfly effect: the initial difference might be the flap of a butterfly's wing, but after the two versions have been progressing for a month or two, one might have a tornado where the other has a clear sky. But it doesn't have to be a butterfly. It can be us. Suitably chosen small interventions will make big differences after a few weeks. It won't be anything like control: the outcomes have to be among the basic range of possibilities. But there are differences that matter, within that range. It's as though we're betting at the same craps table, but every third game or so we see a chance to weight the dice. Conventional geoengineering involves a lot of work everywhere, to tweak the probabilities over the whole table. Adaptation adjusts the payouts. Circulation geoengineering makes a tiny change at just the right time and place, when the opportunity arises. It's a complicated situation, not just the roll of a simple die. So there are many ways we may be able to intervene. A key concept to understand is the Coriolis effect. Wind moves in response to pressure differences. Where the pressure is higher, that pushes air toward places where the pressure is lower. But that's not the direction the wind blows. Matter in motion tends to keep going the same direction; it takes a force to change it. As the planet rotates on its axis, the wind tries to keep going the same absolute direction, not the same direction relative to the earth. In our rotating perspective, it veers off to the side. It keeps doing so until the pressure gradient exactly balances the Coriolis force, and wind flows along isobars (lines of equal pressure) instead of from high pressure to low. That theoretical condition is called the geostrophic wind. Temperature differences drive the wind by creating pressure differences pushing in the direction that would transport heat, and the geostrophic wind blows crosswise to that. So given a constant temperature distribution on the ground, the geostrophic wind wouldn't transport any heat. There are a number of differences between real winds and the geostrophic wind, but the main one is drag. Drag makes the wind slower than geostrophic, so some air can flow down the pressure gradient. So if we want heat transported, all we have to do is create drag. Our inteverntions don't have to do any work: the wind would do work on them. There's hardly any drag more than a hundred meters or so above the ground. So modest drag from [airborne wind turbines] could make a big relative difference. Airborne wind turbines are in a relatively early stage of development, but their promoters claim they would be cost-competitive with other sources of energy. If so, the intervention might even pay for itself. There's more I could say, such as about the transport of moisture and using snow cover to affect albedo, but I'm getting long-winded already. Thank you! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3986
|
cmv
|
human
|
I believe 911 actually happened. I also believe President Bush staged 911 in order to put fear in the hearts of Americans to get the Patriot Act passed. Since then, there have been several "National Tragedies" that I believe are staged in order to take away citizen's privacys and freedoms (Sandy Hook and gun laws). When Obama's ratings were at their lowest, Seal Team 6 conveniently located and killed Osama which restored American's trust in the president. Then Seal Team 6 was tragically killed (murdered) right after before somebody spilled the beans. It all seems fishy and I'm not combined otherwise.
|
human-1202
|
cmv
|
human
|
Currently, as I understand it, any income from any sort of investment is taxed at the capital gains tax rate, which is roughly equivalent to the tax rate of those making minimum wage. This applies to all sorts of things, from dividends, to selling property at greater value, to stock sales. The theory behind stock sales being included in this is that we want to encourage the rich to invest in the economy, pumping money in so that those who are not so wealthy have the ability to climb their way up. The problem is that it introduces instability into the market. It makes short term gains, which drive up stock prices at the cost of long term viability (see: mortgage crisis, Enron), more appealing than the steady, long term growth that is good for the economy as a whole (or even steady, profitable non-growth). To remedy this problem, I think it'd be worthwhile to tax stock sales at the regular income rate. That way those with money to invest would have more incentive to invest for the long haul, rather than just for today in a "I got mine, damn the rest of you" sort of fashion. I'd put in an exception for retirement funds, etc, up to a certain amount, with the standard penalties if you withdraw early, that sort of thing, but other than that, any stock sales would be taxed as though it were part of your normal income. ...but I'm quite certain that this idea, and the results and effects of it, are too complex for me to understand with just my own processing, so I come to you rational folks. I believe that taxing (most) stock sales as regular income would have a beneficial, stabilizing effect on the economy, CMV.
|
human-1617
|
cmv
|
human
|
First, what does it mean to "be slutty"? In my opinion, there are varying degrees of being slutty - from sexually repressed (the opposite of slutty) to flirting to promiscuity. I believe that the more slutty you are, the less value your emotional investment is worth. The sluttier person in any given relationship would have to invest more emotionally for the investment to be "equal." I know this is wrong and that I shouldn't think this way, but I do. Please CMV. Edited for clarity
|
human-3400
|
cmv
|
human
|
As far as I understand, one tenet of mainstream feminism is that there is a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is a biological trait. As far as I know, the defining biological feature of a female is that it produces relatively large gametes (sex cells). The defining feature of a male is that it produces small gametes. Gender, on the other hand, is culturally defined. The overwhelming majority of human cultures assign certain gender roles to biological males, and other gender roles to biological females. An example of a 'gender' difference might be that men and women in the Western world wear different clothes. An example of a 'sex' defference might be that men have deeper voices and tend to be physically stronger. However, I don't think the gendersex dichotomy is as clear as some people would have us believe. If I were to accept the distinction, I would have to agree that any trait could clearly be classified as "biological" or "cultural." I think this is an overly reductionist point of view, and that in fact most traits will be influenced by both biology and culture. In fact, I think biology itself influences culture, and culture influences biology. The two are intertwined, and it's rarely possible to pick one apart from another. Therefore, I conclude that sex and gender are intertwined, and that it's rarely possible to pick one from the other. As an example of a trait that (from my point of view) does not clearly fall into one camp or another, let's take competitiveness (or agression, as another example). Men tend to be more agressive than women. It's less obvious that they're more competitive, but I think a case can be made. I don't think anyone should claim to know how either of these traits are determined. Thus, I think the distinction between sex and gender is a false dichotomy. Edit: got to step out for a couple of hours, I'll be back in a while. Thanks for all the posts so far. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1657
|
cmv
|
human
|
To my knowledge, Metalgate is about one website (Spin), just one, publishing a single article which contains a comment that people considered to be offensive enough to get upset over. The comment in its entirety: "Metal is still dogged by the issues that arise from its deep-seated conservative values, but thanks to an increase in conversations about racism, politics, and feminism, those on the right side of history have gained solid ground." I don't think this is anything to get riled up over. I mean, there are no hordes of articles proclaiming "metal fans are over." I feel like this is really not a big deal. Anybody want to change my view? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3167
|
cmv
|
human
|
This question concerns the injustice in the manner in which the 'plastic' creditbanking system is funded. Commercial law, as written, permits the fees for the system to be charged to the retailer, who takes them as a business expense which is reflected in his retail pricing. Those fees then effectively represent a hidden surcharge on all retail transactions whether they use the system or not. They are in effect, a sales tax on the entire retail economy, levied, not by any Government, but by commercial institutions. Hidden fees such as this have always been considered 'sharp practice', unethical, at best. To make matters worse, the card issuers are now offering promotional rebates, in effect 'giving back' part of the money they get from those who use cash, to those who actually use the service. This clearly victimizes those who don't, or can't, use the system, (often those most in need). A large part of the cost of the system is due to the high level of fraud it permits and the banks have little incentive to improve that situation because they just pass on the cost in the unfair fee structure already described. Those who don't or can't use 'plastic are clearly being victimized, deprived of money for no benefit received.
|
human-3858
|
cmv
|
human
|
I want to say right off the bat that I don't believe this is a women's rights issue. It's a child's rights issue. I believe that children have a right to live, even if they're put up for adoption. Now obviously in cases where a doctor (preferably two but I understand that's not always possible) believes the mother's life is in danger then by all means get an abortion. But I believe life begins at conception, and that aborting an unborn child for the sake of convenience is wrong. Change my view? Seriously. Please. There are people (including my SO) who would hate me for this view, but I can't seem to change my mind.
|
human-2609
|
cmv
|
human
|
It is true what they say: it's the most wonderful time of the year! Christmas is, in my mind, the best holiday of all for a million reasons. Whether or not you celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday or as the commercialized regular American holiday version, it is still the best holiday out there. As a Catholic Christian, I love Christmas because it celebrates the day Jesus was brought to Earth. I love going to church on Christmas Eve night and singing "Joy to the World" and praising the Lord for sending us our eventual savior. Apart from religion, Christmas to me means 'family', and every year I get to spend time with both sides of my family. I see grandparents and cousins and aunts and uncles that I normally don't get to see throughout the year. I also get to spend more quality time with my immediate family, which is sometimes hard to do with busy schedules. To many people, Christmas is about the presents, and although that shouldn't be the main point, I would never deny the fact that it is fun receiving gifts from people who are close to you, and vice versa I enjoy giving people I love gifts and seeing their excitement upon opening them. I love the story behind the commercialized version of Christmas, including Santa Clause and his reindeers and elves. I especially enjoy watching Christmas movies about Santa and all other Christmas movies in general. It has become a tradition for many families to watch Christmas movies each night leading up to the 25th. Christmas cookies and hot chocolate are also an essential part of Christmas, and I love both making and eating Christmas treats. Any holiday that promotes baked goods is a holiday I support. I don't know anyone who doesn't get into the spirit of Christmas when they hear a Christmas song, and I love when radio stations only play Christmas tunes for the holiday. Lastly, I love decorating the Christmas tree and the house with lights and ornaments and wreaths. It creates a magical experience going down the streets and seeing everything lit up against the snow. I could go on and on, but those are a few of the things I love the most. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-3082
|
cmv
|
human
|
I always find it baffling that there's always advertisements about charities or Goodwill-esque organizations asking for the common person to donate when the wealthy can donate an exorbitant amount of money. I understand celebrities have a finite amount of currency, but I don't see why they can't donate a lump-sum, effectively allowing the middle and lower classes to feel less "wrong" morally by not helping a good cause. Also, a wealthy person's single contribution can easily outnumber a large amount of common donations, allowing more research and awareness to be completed at a much faster rate.
|
human-3010
|
cmv
|
human
|
While the title sounds like a no duh situation my opinion is actually quite controversial and I am honestly open to discussion and willing to change my mind if people can logically explain to me why my following opinion is wrong. Single parenting in the United States is on the rise and has been as seen in the quote taken from the listed source below. "Since the 1960s, there has been a marked increase in the number of children living with a single parent. The 1960 United States Census reported that 9 of children were dependent on a single parent, a number that has increased to 28 by the 2000 US Census. The spike was caused by an increase in unmarried pregnancies, which 36 of all births by unmarried women, and to the increasing prevalence of divorces among couples" I believe this trend of single parenting is a net negative to the society of the United States. As such I believe it is in society's the governments best interest to incentives a "family unit." The family unit is not the point of this discussion just that a unit of two or more capable people provide the best environment for the children and that is the goal of society. This line of reasoning is supported with the following quote. "The Institute for the Study of Civil Society reports that children of single parents, after controlling for other variables like family income, are more likely to have problems. It is encouraged that each parent respect the other, at least in the child's presence, and provide child support for the primary caregiver, when parents are not married or separated.[1921] The civil behavior among separated parents has a direct effect on how child copes with their situation; this is especially seen in younger children who do not yet understand their familial separation, requiring both parents to establish a limited friendship to support the upbringing of their child.[21 So if the quotes are to be taken as facts and society is a rational actor then we as society should provide an incentive to correct the trend of single parenting. There can be many negative and positive incentives ranging from tax breaks, to opt-in financial support for males, government back sex education, free contraceptives, society shaming of single parents and more. However I will stress that the ends justify the means as this discussion is being framed in a utilitarian philosophical point of view. Also the method of correcting the trend must be realistic in the United States modern time. Mass killing of single parents is not an option or other blindly ignorant answers. Personally I believe a combination of sex education, subsidized contraceptives, free abortions, public shaming of single parenting, and opt-in support for parents would have the desired effects of reducing single parents. However I stress the methods are a means to an end, not the end its self and each can easily be changed in my view point if it is shown to be non-effective or other methods would be more effective. CMV Source:
|
human-1979
|
cmv
|
human
|
In the US (and I'm guessing other western countries), people traditionally leave their parents' homes and get a place of their own at some point relatively early in their adult lives - perhaps after high school, perhaps after college, or perhaps once they get a job. By contrast, in India, people often live with their parents even after getting married. I think it's similar in other Asian cultures but I can only really speak for India. A better way to summarize it is that the American "nuclear family in the house" model is inferior to the Indian "extended family in the house" model. One reason is the convenience factor. If you work in the same general area as where your parents live (i.e. in the Bay Area or in LA), it just makes sense for you to live with them. You can save money on rentmortgage and utilities. You can share rides. You can live in a place that you're already intimately familiar with. Then there's the emotional aspect. Who knows you better and loves you more than your parents? No one, that's who. Sure, friends and lovers are good for fun and pleasure, but when it comes to people who genuinely love you and care for you, no one can beat your parents (or, for that matter, extended family like grandparents and relatives). Your parents also need you to take care of them when they're older, and that's just not possible if you live somewhere else. In the Americanwestern system, aging parents are often thrown into a retirementnursing home and abandoned there. In the Indian system, they're cared for and loved and cherished in their old age. Of course, as I said, none of this is true if you work in a completely different part of the country (i.e. if your parents live in California and your job is in New York). But if possible, it's better to live with your parents and it's also a sign that you love them more. I guess the reason I'm posting this is that I currently live with my parents and I'm looking to move out of my parents' house and into an apartment. Admittedly, I'm quite sick of living here and I don't get along much with my parents anymore (I'm a 27-year-old Indian guy) and I have been looking for apartments, but I can't help but feel like moving out would be "wrong" or "non-Indian." Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1542
|
cmv
|
human
|
There is no good thing someone has done that has not benefited them in some way as far as I can tell. Look, there's no unselfish good deed, sorry!
|
human-3551
|
cmv
|
human
|
Just to be clear, I don't think that every redditor is anti-semitic, but that many have anti-semitic sentiments. Henceforth referring to "reddit" means "the majority of redditors based on upvotes." 1) There was an article in World News on a woman in Israel being fined for not circumcising her child. I'm not going to argue much over the article's content, except that reddit seemed quick to assume the situation was Israel forcing it's citizens to circumcise their children, when really it was part of a religious divorce dispute. Even if the situation is exactly as the article states, the fact that it's in world news shows Reddit's true colors. Why should anyone outside of Israel and the Jewish community as a whole care about this article, unless it's because of reddit's infatuation with criticizing Jews? It's not simply that this reached the front page, but the comments on the post too. The top comment suggests "removing the earlobes" of children. Redditors always say circumcision is "barbaric" (this was mentioned a myriad times in a thread on what will be viewed as barbaric in 100 years) and they always compare male circumcision to female circumcision Female circumcision makes it so those women cannot enjoy sex, men who are circumcised do enjoy sex (despite reddit's firm belief to the contrary). Also redditors say its torturing a child to circumcise him in the Jewish way. As someone who went through a Jewish circumcision, and has many friends in the same situation, none of us care. You can't remember anything from 8 days old. None of us care. Redditors also always mention sucking the blood from the penis. While yes, some people do this, the vast majority of Jews don't. It's just some Ultra Orthodox sects (and even then they usually use a special tube to avoid infection once they realized that it was happening). Now, when Reddit is anti-circumcision, they usually say to wait until the child reaches 18 and can decide for himself. In my opinion this is equivalent to saying "hey Jews, you're wrong (and barbarians) and you can't decide how to raise your own child." They say that cutting off a tiny piece of skin should not be allowed, but ignore how every single decision a parent makes for their child cannot simply be left for the kid until he's 18. Claiming that a parent cannot circumcise his kid is akin to saying that he should not be allowed to raise his kid Jewish. And don't forget that the American Academy of Pediatrics says that the [benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the costs] , but that it should still be left up to the family. 2) Reddit has a strong anti-Israel view in general. While being critical of any country is obviously fine to a certain extent, Reddit concentrates unfairly on the Jewish State. In nearly every Israel thread people call the Israeli government Nazis. They act like Israel is the worst country in the world, when there are obviously far worse ones. ON top of this, Redditors conveniently ignore that the people Israel is fighting actively call for their destruction, and act like Israel is just treating palestinians differently based on racism. This is clearly not true considering there are a large number of muslim citizens of Israel who have equal rights with Jews. My main points again: 1) Redditors focus on a Jewish tradition that is not actually an issue pertaining to them. 2) Redditors claim that Jews are "barbaric" ignoring the AAP. 3) focusing on a small sect of Judaism's uncommon tradition, blowing it out of proportion, and claiming that it makes all Jews barbaric. 4) Trying to take away the ability of a parent to raise his kid according to Jewish tradition. 5) unfairly demonizing the Jewish state. And to add on to that, many redditors criticize Aipac, turning it into some sort of Elders of Zion like entity. I'm not trying to argue over the points that I made (I'm not going to change my view on circumcising children, but if you need to argue against some of my sub-arguments I understand) but please CMV on reddit being anti-semitic. Edit: Here's a comment from the circumcision thread. "So the fucked up part is just elsewhere. The fucked up part is: a) Decisions that should be handled by a civil court are handled by religious authorities. b) Parents having the power to perform unnecessary, traumatic procedures on their children." Why should some random shmuck have any say on Israel's religious affairs? He's not there, it doesn't affect him at all, he's just hating Judaism.
|
human-2511
|
cmv
|
human
|
Healthcare is one of the few services where you have no clue how much you'll pay until the very last provider thinks they gouged whatever they can out of you. Force every provider, facility, etc. to publish all the costs - hospital stay fees, medical devices, medication, nurse services, doctor fees etc. for each procedure done. Publish it o the internet and on paper at entrance to each facility, hospital, and doctor. People flocking to cheaper hospitals and doctors will reduce healthcare costs more efficiently than anything else (price ceiling, floors, etc.). Let the providers compete on the pricing, not patients.
|
human-3412
|
cmv
|
human
|
So I'm a person who believes that human life is sacred and that life begins at conception. I also believe that it the best policy with respect to abortion rights is to first recognize that abortion being legal prevents even worse outcomes, and second, to fund the hell out of programs that provide contraception, pre-natal screenings, and adoption programs so that women who get pregnant when they don't want to have the economic freedom to choose for the life of their child. So while I am pro-life in terms of my beliefs, I am pro-choice in terms of my policy support. Lately the GOP (and to be clear, I'm largely a liberal democrat but with respect to this one issue) has taken to passing laws that require physicians to lie to patients about medical and scientific facts in order to coerce them into keeping their children. For example, they're seeking to pass legislation in a number of states that require physicians to tell patients that a fetus can feel pain at [22 weeks gestational age] even though there [is little evidence to support that claim.] I am of the opinion that his is a horrible policy move. Government sanctioned lying can never result in a positive outcome. Edit: The reason I say that is because this will inevitably lead the voting public to be distrustful of any government claims as people learn that the government is actually required by law to deceive the public over issues that are simple factual questions. It is in the government's greater interest to be a trustworthy source of information except possibly in cases of national security interests. I also don't believe that this strategy will actually do much to help in preventing abortions. Abortions happened when they were fully illegal before, and they will continue to happen if we make them illegal again: either through illicit surgical procedures of questionable safety, or through intentional drug overdoses and other acts that are dangerous for the mother. The only way to legitimately limit abortion rates is to provide adequate access to contraception, along with the economic and social support necessary to choose to carry a child to term (and ensure the potential for that child to have a healthy, successful life) as a real option. CMV! Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1821
|
cmv
|
human
|
The document that was drawn up and voted on by the FCC has yet to be released, and none of us pleebs know exactly what is in it. The FCC has in the past shown that it is more than willing to kowtow to morality based special interest groups to censor the content that it regulates. This occurred with both television and radio. With radio in particular the FCC started by simply regulating the waves themselves (who got them, the wattage they could broadcast, etc.) but eventually grew to regulate the actual content within them. The rules for radiobroadcast TV at this time are extremely random and that is due to groups lobbying to have specific morality rules in place. I think that this will be the first step to having an internet controlled by morality police.
|
human-1300
|
cmv
|
human
|
First, let me get this out of the way: no amount of feeling justifies an unjustifiable action; sexual attraction doesn't justify harassment or assault, and I am not arguing in favor of excessive ogling, inappropriate comments, harassment, rape, or assault. However, here's what I think: Even when women dress in tight-fitting or revealing clothing "just to feel confident" or "just because they like it," there's more going on behind the scenes. The fashions and styles we find attractive and appealing are not determined by our biology social factors are much more important. What looks good and what makes us feel confident is determined, in large part, by what we see on TV, magazines, movies, etc. (I haven't seen anyone in the past 20 years wearing what was considered stylish and attractive in the 1700s.) Most of the images of women we see in media that shape our fashion sense are based on the premise the sexualized content sells better. I therefore assert that much of what women wear "to feel good about themselves" was intentionally designed to attract the male gaze and evoke sexual feelings in men. I further think that women do, or should, know this when they buywear the clothing. So while I don't think a woman is responsible for a man's actions, I think the current mainstream viewpoint goes too far in the other direction asserting that only the male is responsible for his feelings of sexual attraction, or for noticing that a woman is dressed in a revealing way. Again, nothing justifies rape or harassment. On the other hand, I don't think it's fair to criticize a man for surreptitious glances or even lingering looks that they think aren't being noticed, if they aren't crossing a line of clear disrespect. I think women should be aware of and accept that sexually suggestive clothing will attract sexual attention. Below the line are thoughts I am not seeking a response to, but decided to share By the way, yes, I feel the same is true for men's clothing, I just think social factors make this argument not as big of a deal eg men aren't harassed as often and don't deal with the same level of unwanted attention. In addition, men's clothing choices generally allow a man to dress in a way that is not a sexual turn-on while still looking attractive to a much greater degree than women, so the man who wears the tight-fitting sleeveless shirt is probably more likely to be wanting sexual attention than women compared to a woman dressed in a similar fashion. I have seen plenty of "parodies" of our culture where they'll shoe a guy in normal shorts or a t-shirt and say "ooohh, how sexually suggestive, I can see his kneeselbows like the french one with the guy wearing shorts who gets raped when riding a bike. I think these miss the mark in two ways one, because I'm not talking about rape here, I don't care if he was naked, rape is awful and only the rapist (and sure, maybe socialcultural factors too to a lesser degree) is responsible for it but two, because no women are actually thinking that the guy's clothing is sexually suggestive. If you're going to parody it, at least make it comparable a better comparison would be a shirtless, muscled guy with low-cut, tight-fitting jeans, or clothing that clearly revealed his cock bulge, etc.
|
human-1924
|
cmv
|
human
|
This is mod post 13. You can read the previous mod post [here] , or by visiting the [mod post archive] in our wiki. Last week we decided to [remove the downvotes from comments] as a result of quite a few requests from the community. Hopefully it didn't drive you all to turn off our CSS (which I think is pretty). So, what did you think of having no downvote arrow? Should we bring it back, and if so, for both the comments and posts? If not, why? I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome our three new moderators: uDrMerkwurdigliebe, uIAmAN00bie, uGameboyPATH We were definitely spoilt for choice with the applications, but we felt we could add no more than three at once. We will likely be recruiting again in the future, so to those who missed out - please stick around! Regards, your ever loving mods.
|
human-4092
|
cmv
|
human
|
I am a 20 year old female. I've only had a couple sexual partners, but each one lost interest in me when they realized I just can't cum. I love sex, I have an extremely high libido. I always figured with good communication and time, it would eventually happen. It hasn't. After posting in a men's forum before asking how they would feel with a girl who can't orgasm, the majority of them revealed just how important it is, and a large amount said they would leave a girl after an extended period of time together without an orgasm happening. This view is also frequently reflected in other people's posts. And I get it. I dated a guy on antidepressants and it was a downer that he rarely got off no matter what I did. So, now I am almost relationship phobic. Why bother letting anyone close if they'll just leave me for being inadequate? Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-2680
|
cmv
|
human
|
STATECRAFT is outlined in the files linked below. It's lengthy, but bear with me. Chances are you'll agree that it's worth it. [This] is the .odt version. [This] is the pdf version. Note that I have side-comments inside the file. It is best to have the file open as you read the rest of this. This text will function as a supplement. For you to understand what I'm trying to do, you will have let go ofor at least suspendall your current assumptions. We will construct everything from fundamental truths. I can do this with rigor (as my foundations are absolutely rigorous), but I'm going to take shortcuts so as to communicate my ideas better. Philosophically-inclined folks, think of the axioms as "practical truths." OK guys, the following is an extremely loose version of my "Hierarchy (of Truths) " referred to in the file. Here are a few relevant axioms. (1) Anti-solipsism. The world exists in whatever way it exists. It is populated by stuff, you, and people like you. These entities can be said to be independent (in the conventional sense) of each other. (2) Qualia. Each person has a unique point-of-view, accessible only to oneself. This can refer to thoughts, sensory perception, and even evaluations of value. Reference: if I'm eating, the specific deliciousness (or not) of the food, at that moment, is accessible only to me. (3) "Equal yet unique." Each person has the qualia of valuegood or not-good. Qualia are equal between persons since each person experiences them privately as they are, by their own terms: good or not-good. People though may experience different qualia from the same stimulus. Reference: Person A eats a donut and finds it delicious. Person B eats the same donut, finds it too sweet and doesn't like it. Both views are valid on the grounds of the sense of taste. Alright. Given that we find ourselves living amongst each other, we further assume that we all want to interact with as little conflict as possible, creating a community where the good stuffsuch as justice, peace, and orderprevails. We then proceed to create an overseeing institution with features that serve said good stuff. Statecraft, to give a rough definition, is a system of identifying our values and applying our knowledge to achieve shared goals in a political setting. It is derived from manifest truths, has an explicit ethical basis where each individual has inherent worth, is party-less and hence has no internal power struggles inherent to it, meritocratic, and purposeful. It is a system that relies on a direct link between values and policy, where knowledge is applied to address our concerns. It is built to have all the strengths of current systems and none of their weaknesses. It corrects itself. It is superior to all alternative systems. Think I'm exaggerating? Kindly read the file and let it sink. Sit on it. I may be away for a while so please be patient with my replies. It probably won't take this long but give me 24 hours anyway. Thanks guys.:)
|
human-1996
|
cmv
|
human
|
First off, I'm not going to go into the reasons for invading another sovereign country. It happened, and I'm one of the "casualties" of the war. The point I'm trying to make is that as a result of it, had we should have followed through completely. It would have been a great thing. I think that while it was the Bush administration, from an even that happened when I was in 8th grade, It could have ended up as a good thing without a sudden withdrawal. Like I said, not going into the reasons, but at the height of US presense in the country, the only opinion I had gotten from people was hope. I talked to dozens of Iraqis, from business owners to drug addicts, and even 5 years after the initial invasion, they were happy with the terrible things that happened as a result of Saddamn getting overthrown. Please, change my view as to why we completely left the country which is now in anarchy. Edit, Edit: I don't have enough energy to debate this, however I will read every post that's in here. After getting an automod post, I will try to respond to valid points the best that I can. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-4162
|
cmv
|
human
|
Many of the people on welfare are dependent for only a short time. Later when they improve their economic condition they have the ability to repay their loans. Just like students take out loans to pay for their education that will improve their future earnings potential, welfare should be a temporary measure to help people improve their condition. By expecting welfare recipients to repay their loans, they will have a better appreciation of the money they are receiving. Also, repayments will expand the amount available to help other people. The welfare programs to include would be food stamps, housing, Medicaid, WIC and some prisons costs such as food and housing.
|
human-3756
|
cmv
|
human
|
I would like to start off by saying I am NOT a huge soccer fan. I rarely watch it and world cup is pretty much the only time I take more of an interest in it. I see so much about why FIFA is evil and that it should not be hosting in Brazil because all the other infrastructure in the country is so poorly funded, etc. And yet I see people turning a blind eye, or are just completely ignorant of that side of things. Why should they care? They just want to see some high level soccer and support their team. They want to go to bars, have some drinks and a good time. Everything on the surface seems so happy and positive, all the "bad" stuff happening is cut out (obviously) and tourists in Brazil just casually overlook all the protests and angry local citizens the same way people do with homeless people asking for change. I feel as though I should be one of those people and not care, watch some games with friends and just enjoy the sport. I might be wrong about most people being ignorant of these issues but everyone around me is just denying the severity or quickly shifting topics to the actual games themselves. CMV
|
human-1356
|
cmv
|
human
|
In a number of states, exemptions from child abuse and neglect laws, as well as laws regarding healthcare and vaccinations, exist for religious reasons. [Source.] I'm of the belief that everyone in a secular society should be held to the same standards. Especially when those standards pertain to how you can treat your children. Additionally, religious exemptions, especially from vaccinations, can be harmful to other children as well as your own, if for example they are allergic to the vaccine and are exposed to a non-vaccinated carrier. In short, it damages herd immunity. So I believe that no exemption of that sort should exist. Change my view.
|
human-2505
|
cmv
|
human
|
I think that space travel is an interesting concept, and I don't argue against learning more about outer space, however when I hear people complain about NASA's budget I just don't see what all the fuss is about. I mean, why should governments, whose main priority is to benefit the people and their respective nation, be forking over money to travel to places that will do little to benefit Earth (Although I do agree that many governments should top spending as much on their militaries) This probably comes down to personal preference, but I also think that the places we have the potential to go to in space aren't very interesting. If we really want to explore the unknown why not explore the deep ocean, that would be less expensive and we would actually see new species, while we probably won't find anything as interesting in our solar system. Ultimately, I think that we should focus on our own planet before others, but I am open to arguments as to why we need to travel into space.
|
human-2504
|
cmv
|
human
|
[Taylor Swift's newest music video] differs dramatically from her previous works. After watching it, I googled it, to see what people were saying about it. One of the first links I found was asking this question: [Is Shake it Off offensive] ? At the heart of the "offensive" argument is the idea of cultural misappropriation. Essentially, critics charge that Swift is taking elements of black culture and using them for her own benefit or in a way that is somehow pernicious to someone. This idea of cultural misappropriation is one that I would like to challenge. In my view, there is no such thing and this complaint is nonsense. It is nonsense both in Taylor's case, and in any other case where cultural misappropriation is the sole complaint. Culture, is a collection of ideas, language, music, art, stories, and so on. Culture doesn't belong to anyone and nobody has a realistic basis to claim that someone else can't use their culture. Any claim as to who can or cannot use culture is especially inherently flawed because people don't come up with culture on their own. Any cultural element came about by taking existing ideas and modifying them and adding something new. Trying to prevent people from using cultural elements is the same as trying to prevent culture from growing. This idea is pointless exclusivity that would result in cultural deprivation. When I try to think of ways that cultural misappropriation might be bad, I come up with two examples. First, when white musicians of yesteryear essentially stole musical forms from black people. Elvis Presley is the quintessential example. I acknowledge that cultural appropriation happened here (note the missing mis) but I dispute that this is anything bad. The harm in the Elvis case is not that Elvis copied black styles for music and dancing. Elvis has every bit as much right to rock and dance lasciviously as anyone else on the planet. Instead, the harm comes from the underlying root cause, that black people were discriminated against in society to the extent that black musicians, doing basically the same thing as Elvis, couldn't succeed. In other words, cultural appropriation still isn't bad here, what is bad is the racist attitudes that prevented black musicians from succeeding in their own right. The solution isn't to chastise Elvis the music thief, but to build a society where artists can succeed or fail regardless of race. While I don't think Taylor Swift has done anything wrong, nor Miley, by taking elements of black music and dance; I would be sympathetic to arguments that society is still structured in ways that reduce the likelihood of success for black musicians. Again though, this problem would not be misappropriation, this problem would be society's racist attitudes. The second example I could think of, but ultimately dismissed, is more extreme (I'm going to Godwin myself). The Nazis adopted the Swastika, which as I understand (from Wikipedia) comes from a Hindi phrase meaning "make good" or something like that. The Nazis appropriated an element of culture and basically ruined it by making it associated with them. Is this an example of cultural misappropriation? I would still say "No" and if I've written my argument above right, then hopefully you'll already understand why, without me having to explain. The harmful things that the Nazis did do not include the drawing of certain symbols on a flag. The harmful stuff is all that mass murder, wars of aggression, eugenics, human experimentation and so on. Because they did harmful things, there is a lot of associated negativity with everything they did, good and bad alike. Another way of thinking about the Nazi example, because certainly I would understand that some Hindi speaking person is upset they can no longer use their swastikas in public in Western countries, is to think of the name Adolph Hitler. Hitler's parents had to choose what to name him, and when they chose Adolph they basically ruined that name for future generations. Was it a morally bad thing to choose this name? The Nazis picking a symbol for their flags is no different than the Hitlers picking a name for their son. Because the Nazis went on to do atrocities, both of these things became tainted, but it was the atrocities that were bad, not the taking of previously existing cultural ideas (name and symbol respectively) that were bad. In other words, cultural appropriation exists and is good. Cultural misappropriation does not exist. Trying to limit cultural appropriation is bad. Or, can you change my view?
|
human-3041
|
cmv
|
human
|
Employees SHOULD describe in as much detail possible what they didn't like about their old job while interviewing for a new one. This question was inspired by a post I recently saw in raskreddit. To begin with, let me state that I'm well aware that the general guideline is that an interviewee should not complain about his or her old job, manager (s) and pay. Don't tell me, "Well, at my job..." Yes, I know there are exceptions, but that is widely regarded as standard by many in the interviewing process. As an interviewee, if I'm leaving my current job it's always certainly because I am dissatisfied with it in some regard. I may want better pay. I may want a position with more responsibility and opportunity. I may see my chances for advancement at my current employer as poor. I may dislike the culture of the company I work for. I may personally dislike my manager and his or her management style. Each of those is profoundly relevant as to whether or not this new hypothetical job for which I'm interviewing may be a better fit for me than my current one. As an interviewer, hearing what people dislike tells you every bit as much about them as what they do. If a candidate says they hate their job because their current boss is a micromanager, and you yourself are an extremely hands-on manager, you may want to consider someone.else. if a candidate complains about "drama" at their current workplace, you can be fairly certain they'll bring a fair amount of it to yours, too. If they say they didn't like the culture at their current place of employment, you can ask them to clarify and assess how it compares to yours. And there are countless others. Therefore, I think interviewees should tell and should be asked what they absolutely loathe about their current place of employment, managers, and so on.
|
human-4208
|
cmv
|
human
|
I really feel that boob jobs really don't improve the look of a woman, and I think that face lifts are actually freakish and scare me. Now, some plastic surgery to fix cleft palate and horrific injuries are fine and have their place. But when girls like Sara Jean Underwood and Nessa Devil for example get boob jobs they end up looking butchered and not good at all. When people like Cher try to get face lifts it just looks freaky and un-natural. When girls like Lindsay Lohan get their lips injected I think it looks awful, and like an allergic reaction. I hate plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons, change my view.
|
human-2967
|
cmv
|
human
|
So about a year ago I learned of Bitcoin for the first time, I have always been quite into economics and ideology and the idea of a global currency with no real controlling body really excited me. I will briefly outline the main reasons why I believe Bitcoin is the future of money. 1. Bitcoin cannot be printed like a traditional state-run currency. Quantitative easing has often been used as a means for governments to raise necessary funds for large scale infrastructure projects, and for wars. While this can often be very useful it has the unfortunate side-effect of nasty inflation which can often lead to currency devaluation. Not allowing this would decrease the money wasted on war and force governments to be more responsible with the money they raise. 2. Bitcoin is global. Many people will argue that a global currency is a bad plan and are infact fearful of globalization, but realistically globalization has been happening for years and will continue to do so, Bitcoin makes it incredibly frictionless to trade across the globe with people from anywhere, no pointless conversion fees, no capital controls. 3. Bitcoin is decentralized. This is an important 1, there is a famous quote which I believe in that goes as follows: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bitcoin is a democracy, anyone can contribute and much like reddit the cream rises to the top, all without giving any single party control. 4. Bitcoin is more secure. Okay, this one might be more controversial, my thinking behind it is as follows: You have 100 in your wallet and get mugged, the mugger takes your 100 and there is nothing you can do. With Bitcoin your money could be stored on the cloud and password protectedencrypted. The only way to get access to it would be via torture or some clever hacking skills. For the average consumer it would be safer to have Bitcoin than physical cash. 5. It's digital. Millions of dollars worth of metals are used producing all of our coins, millions more are spent on credit cards, paper notes, cheque books and all of the staff required to run a normal currency. Bitcoin cuts out the bureaucracy and saves resources. Some might argue that Bitcoin mining uses up more power, but I suspect that Paypal, VISA, Mastercard, the computers and servers used by central banks is probably higher. I have no stats to back this up, sorry. 6. It's efficient, extremely low fees and transfers limited only by the speed at which we can send data. 7. Potential future applications. The blockchain has potential for a huge range of other applications beyond just normal money, projects such as NXT and XCP. The combination of all of these reasons leads me to believe that it is only a matter of time before the world adapts to use Bitcoin or something very similar that inherits most of the properties of Bitcoin. The biggest concerns I have are of deflation and the markets being too free (no consumer protections).
|
human-2746
|
cmv
|
human
|
First, I want to address the more specific contention about mandating sociology in college. I believe that sociology has very few people taking it as a major (relatively speaking) and it only subsists as a separate subject because so many people studying other areas are required to take it or need to in order to fulfill an elective requirement. While I am very supportive of opening student's minds to other subject matters than their specific majors, I feel that sociology is a subject that revolves too much around common sense and knowledge that could be concluded by an intelligent individual after a little thought. This moves me to the broader topic, that sociology is useless in general. As I stated, it is mostly common sense. Why do poor people remain poor? Sociology claims that it could be a cycle of poverty, a flaw in the societal system, or biological issues with the victims themselves. All of the contentions seem like rather obvious conclusions. Would most people really need a lengthy book, a teacher, and quizzes and tests to come to these points? I say no. However, I do see one advantage with sociology. This is that sociology can give good statistical analyses of group demographics and attitudes within populations of countries and certain groups. But I don't believe that this one function merits sociology enough credit to classify it as its own important subject field. I see it more as a specialization of statisticians or maybe a lesser topic to be regarded when studying history or political studies. And again, my main point is that the field is so basic and intuitively obvious to the common person that it should not really be taught as its own separate subject. CMV.
|
human-1312
|
cmv
|
human
|
First of all, I've seen his show. I enjoyed his show. I watched it a lot. After a few years of being a fan, I started to look past, "this is pretty cool," and wondered whether or not it was realistic. It really seems as though what Cesar is doing is just stopping bad behaviors temporarily. He uses methods like positive punishment, which have proven effective for human beings, but what logical reason could there be for it to have the exact same effect on dogs? Sometimes, even more effective. My most solid piece of evidence is this episode in which he helps a family, with a guy named Greg. Who is Greg? Greg is an actor. You may know him from his youtube channel, "MediocreFilms." I believe that he was hired to pretend that this dog was his. They used his real name and everything in the show, so even the dumbest internet sleuth could find the guy. I think it's kind of obvious to anyone who is skeptical, and has heard of MediocreFilms. Please Reddit. Change my view. I want to believe. edited for spelling errors
|
human-1478
|
cmv
|
human
|
I was listening to the podcast [Common Sense, by Dan Carlin] and he recently touched on the topic of gun control. He mentioned that recently some Jewish leaders in Europe have begun petitioning for the ability to arm some of their population for need of self defense. link] ] I believe that it is a fundamental right of these people to expect to be safe in their lives. And if the government is unable to adequately provide for that safety, then people should have the right to pursue any reasonable form of self defense, including owning firearms. There is no acceptable reason to prevent any group which is being attacked or threatened with illegal attacks from defending itself in any way reasonable. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1393
|
cmv
|
human
|
Needless to say, my view is probably shared by many. There are countless movies, books, essays and studies on the matter. It is also clear that the world population awareness on this subject has been increasing, exponentially, in the last decades. I believe that our efforts to save the planet wereare not enough. Much has been done in this area, with different success levels, and the technology today allow for a less contaminating industry, however, as a species, I think it is not enough and I think the planet is doomed. Too late, too few. I do not want to enter into politics but I blame all this on our hyper-consumerist worldwide society, ruled by world capitalism... And we all know how capitalism works and how our society is built today assuming that resources are infinite, but they are not. I have been asking myself some metaphorical questions: If the Earth could "speak" what it will say to us? I imagine it will be something along the lines "You are killing me.," "I wish you disappear." or "Get out!." As you can see, I am a skeptic on this subject, and therefore I am writing this CMV because I would like to read other people position on this matter. Are we good for our planet? Can Earth benefit from humanity? Can we still save it or it is too late? EDIT: When I refer to Earth and the planet I am not relating to the rock itself and whenever it will explode or disappear by our action; I was not clear, this is not my view. I am relating to the planet as the biosphere, with its fauna and flora, its biodiversity. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
human-1401
|
cmv
|
human
|
I believe that only having two parties is grossly polarizing the United States and horribly messing up our ability to govern ourselves as a country. You either lean left or right, but if your beliefs land somewhere in the middle (which most peoples' tend to) you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Politicians can no longer really be "Moderate" and it's borderline scandalous if they don't vote along party lines. I think we'd have a better time of it if we had 3 or 4 (or even 5) parties to choose from, so that everyone's views could be better represented on the political spectrum.
|
human-2683
|
cmv
|
human
|
Almost by default, a single parent sees less of their children then a dual parent household. They must both work and raise their children all by themselves, while a dual parent household can have 1 working parent and 1 stay at home parent. Also, a single parent may not be the best role model for a child. For instance, a single mother may not be an adequate replacement for a father for a young boy, and vice verse for a single father and his daughter. Also single parent households are generally poorer than dual parent ones, which again makes the children's life more difficult.
|
human-3069
|
cmv
|
human
|
My belief that the ethical worth of an action depends on its consequences for happiness and suffering informs my perspective on this issue. Because it does not necessarily cause more suffering than it alleviates, suicide is not inherently unethical. Even in instances when the depression of the suicidal person is mild, suicide can be ethically permissible. People do not have ethical obligations to their future selves, because those future selves are non-existent. Human actions do not happen in a vacuum. Since we are social beings living in a social context, our actions often have unintended consequences. Suicide is only unethical when surviving loved ones suffer as a result of the suicide. Suicidal people who leave notes that provide closure to friends and family, or who gradually distance themselves from loved ones, mitigate the suffering caused by their suicide and thus increase its moral worth. Happiness and suffering are impossible to precisely quantify, but if a rational person would conclude that the actual suffering of a suicidal person exceeded the potential suffering of surviving loved ones, the suicide would be ethically permissible. The last surviving man on Earth could commit suicide with ethical justification. A single mother who was beloved by her community and experiencing a temporary rough patch would be wrong to commit suicide. Waiting to die rather than choosing to die is not ethically obligatory. The philosophical arguments against suicide qua suicide contain sophistry that disguise unjustified taboo morality.
|
human-1891
|
cmv
|
human
|
Ok, just to clarify here, I have only had marijuana once, a few years ago. I am not a stoner, and this CMV has nothing to do with my own personal convenience. I feel as if the United States as a whole could benefit from marijuana being legal. The many solutions it would provide span our entire society: If there's one thing I learned from grade school, it's that many people will do things for their image. The fact that marijuana is illegal may appeal more to someone looking to prove something about themselves. Not saying that every user is like this, most probably aren't, but the money that it costs to detain that many minor drug offenders could be completely avoided. Speaking of costs, the distribution of marijuana is easily a multi-billion dollar "industry." Sure, the substance would probably drop in price if it were easy to obtain, but there's no denying that it could give a little boost to the economy The prohibition of alcohol in 1919 caused a lot of problems. Nowadays, due to many outdated drug laws from the early days of industry, punishment is quite ridiculous. I've heard of several instances where drivers who have killed entire families in car accidents have gotten far less prison time than someone who was caught with relatively weak substances. Now, I know for certain that many people on this subreddit are a LOT more insightful than I am, so excuse what may end up being some weak arguments on my part. I'm just genuinely curious how others feel about this hot topic of debate.
|
human-1262
|
cmv
|
human
|
IMHO, male persons do not have equal rights as female persons in this particular case. A male - let's call him Peter - wants to avoid pregnancy - wearing a condom is aquite effective way to do that. But sometimes Peter can be unlucky - while he sleeps with a woman Sarah, the condom tears apart. Bothdon't recognize the accident untilthey'redone. Sarah wants to keep the child and gets pregnant - her decision. But what about Peter? Here comes the unfair part: Sarah has a choice where Peter has not. He doesn't want the child but has to pay anyway, because of an accident and a decision of Sarah. Peter should be able to insist on after pill, abortion or to give the child away after birth. If Sarah still wants the child or is strongly against after pill abortion Peter should not be forced to care about the child.
|
human-2658
|
cmv
|
human
|
Speed cameras are a way for the government to tell when people are breaking the law. That's why they exist. It completely defeats the point if they have to be clearly signed and visible. Because of this, people just brake right before the camera, and speed up again on the other side of it. Sure speed traps still catch people who aren't paying attention, but that's a small percentage of the dangerous drivers that speed cameras were invented to help prevent. I've heard that they have to be signed to prevent the government from using them as revenue machines, placing them all over the place just as a way of making money. But why is that a bad thing. The only way for drivers to avoid paying a fine if there were speed traps hidden everywhere would be to obey the law. Really there should be speed cameras lining the sides of every street everywhere, because then they would have the effect that they're supposed to have, which is to force people to drive safely. Even if that is an outrageously expensive set-up, we can atleast emulate it by allowing the government to hide cameras anywhere they like. Then we'll never know if we're about to drive past one, so we'll have to obey the speed limits at all times or risk a fine.
|
human-2337
|
cmv
|
human
|
Since my last CMV many things have materialized, so I decided to write a new CMV. The most important thing that materialized was the answer [Donald Sterling's Answer] [I posted in rnba but it seems they've deleted or hid it some how.] Next we have V. Stivano's talk with Barbara Walter's Dr. Phil: [Dr. Phil: V. Stiviano: The Woman behind the Donald Sterling Scandal - May 21, 2014] -I liked this interview a lot. I don't know if this is here and Donald have some sort of clandestine affair. However, I think she does very well under pressure. In a lot ways I think she's the perfect mistress, also the perfect assistant. She explains that she took him middle class shops, and did things with him that were his normal life. But more importantly she does not appear like gold digger, she feels she earned everything with work. She improves Donald's image, and also she seems very committed to him for some reason. Whenever she talks about Donald talks about him very highly, even when she has the opportunity to betray him. I think you have to respect a person like that. I find it funny that every lady that I know immediately thinks she was sleeping Donald. [Donald Sterling's Confidante V.Stiviano Speaks Out] -This interview is very convincing that Stivano cares about Donald. -Both interviews bring an important questions. Would it wrong for a racist man to hire someone that would help him not be racist? Can someone have redemption? [FULL INTERVIEW] DONALD STERLING ON ANDERSON COOPER 360] -This interview is odd because not entirely surely if Donald posturing or not. Since he's been a lawyer for a long time I believe he knows how to lie. The thing that's a problem here, is I'm not sure he can even have sex. Because he so vague about his encounters with V. Stiviano I feel like he's trying maintain his image. [Spike Lee addresses racist LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling] -I think he's right that people shoudl speak about this. There's separation from activity and thoughts. I think we thoughts should be protected. [Mark Cuban on Donald Sterling Racism Scandal Future of Privacy] -I think Mark Cuban's Take is fair. I agree also that you can't legislate morality. [Skip and Stephen A.'s Reaction to Mayweather - T.I. Brawl] -I added this video because I think it's hilarious that Stephen A. Smith says the exact same thing as Sterling did in his comments about Stiviano. In fact, the situation between Mayweather and TI is similar. Especially, if you believe that Sterling's jealousy brought up the comments. But for some reason it's ok for Stephen A. to talk about Race and perception, but not ok for Sterling? The only difference between Stephen A Smith and Sterling is history. I think that Sterling's statements are caustic. I think it's important to understand when he came from. He came from the heart of Jim Crow laws. He's also Jewish, and it is well Jews have received there share of racism. So the comments don't surprise me. I do not feel that he's wrong for thinking these thoughts. As long as he isn't making racist actions, his comments are about things we may not like, but it's something we must allow. Mainly because, there was a time where anti racist sentiment were vilified as much as Donald Sterling's comments, and if we didn't allow people have their individual thoughts we would never have gotten to where we are today. So if Sterling is ousted it should be on evidence rather than this call. And based on all the information that has come about, he should keep the Clippers.
|
human-2629
|
cmv
|
human
|
Whenever a radfem does something abrasive and potentially unjust in the name of feminism, you'll always have those who will say that "they aren't real feminists" or "not all feminists are like that." While they're quick to tell this to the average person, how often do you see them out in public decrying the actions of radical feminists? I like to think of it as "guilt by association." You have a feminist and a radical feminist. The radfem is shouting the usual "cishet white male oppresion" spiel and how they should tear down the patriarchy by any means necessary. The regular feminist doesn't agree with the radfems reasoning, but since they are supposedly fighting for the same goal, she ignores it, and wonders why some people treat her with disdain before she even says a word simply because she identifies as feminist. She's being viewed as being supportive of the radfems since she isn't speaking out against them with nearly the same fervor that the radfems harbor. A lot of the focus on feminism is attracted to the radfems, like the ones who harassed those guys at the cathedral in Argentina. He who speaks loudest is heard, and since the radfems (there are varying levels of radical by the way, not just the shrieking pseudo-terrorists) are constantly out-voicing intelligent feminists, it's beginning to leave a stain on what started out as a great movement. If regular feminists would hold rallies and protests against radfems just like they would about other issues, then feminism wouldn't be demonized as much. CMV.
|
human-2942
|
cmv
|
human
|
I believe it would cut back drastically on the congressional fixation with re-election, thereby reducing corruption. It would also ensure that the "Washington clique" changes often enough to avoid solidifying, thus putting the will of constituents at a higher priority than maintenance of the status quo.
|
human-3643
|
cmv
|
human
|
The US army [requires] : push-ups sit-ups 2-mile run men 40 50 16:36 women 17 50 23:06 What rational justification can there be for excluding a man from the military who can meet the female standards but not the male standards. If fitness requirements serve a functional military purpose, why should a man who can do only 20 push-ups in a minute be rejected while a woman at the same level would be adequately fit? If certain levels of fitness are required for the job, why should women get a handicap? Is the purpose of the fitness requirements to reward people who are relatively fit for their peer group or to serve functional goals?
|
human-2075
|
cmv
|
human
|
As somone who lives in sweden where its illegal to "spank" or be harming to your kids it came to me as a shock that this was normal in other country.
|
human-3115
|
cmv
|
human
|
I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don't know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let's say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to [read through our rules] . If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change views] ! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our [popular topics wiki] first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to [message us] . Happy CMVing!
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 4