claim
string | positive
string | negative
string | post_id
string | post_title
string | post_text
string | post_timestamp
int64 | post_author
string | positive_comment_id
string | negative_comment_id
string | positive_comment_score
int64 | negative_comment_score
int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMV: 16 Year olds should be allowed to vote in the UK.
In the UK general election, the Labour party are claiming they will allow 16 Year olds to vote in elections.
I've seen commentators ridiculing the idea of giving votes to children. And yet those 'children', can, in the UK;
- Have consensual sex
- By extension of the above, have children and be legally responsible for them
- have a full time job
- as an extension of the above, pay taxes
-drink alcohol with a meal
- drive a moped
- drive a car in some circumstances (when it's needed as part of a personal independence plan as support for a disability)
-join the army
It's completely inconsistent to agree with these points, particularly the first 4, but claim they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you think the age of consent, and thus legal responsibility for a child, and of getting a full time job, and therefore paying taxes, should be 18, along side the age of voting , I have no issue with you, you're holding a reasonable and consistent position.
To change my view, you need to show me why the above rights are fair at 16 but the right to vote is not.
|
Being able to legally have sex, take responsibility for children you create, work, and drive are perfectly reasonable rights/responsibilities to have at 16. They basically come down to issues of bodily autonomy and undertaking tasks that are either simple (driving) or don't overly affect others (holding down whatever job a 16 year old can land). (Joining the army at 16 requires parental permission, so it's not really a right UK 16 years actually exercise on their own.) As for paying taxes, even 5 year olds pay sales taxes when they purchase something, so there's really no special age related to taxation. But being allowed to vote implies having the maturity to make a political choice for the good of your society, and that's something most 16 year olds don't have the life experience or maturity to exercise. Some do, but most don't. Research shows that the brain is still wiring itself well through adolescence and doesn't really settle into its adult form until about 25 years of age. Personally, I think leaving the right to vote until age 25 seems excessive, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and 18 is where it's landed in most western countries. Moving the bar 2 years earlier to 16 can't be justified except as a ploy to add presumably sympathetic voters to your party's list of supporters.
|
I think your getting it wrong. Age 16 is too old. The voting age should be lowered to age 10 instead. 10 year olds know more stuff than most adults do, for example they have know a lot about skibbiti toilot and mewing. Our youth see things in an unbiased way and want to help, while most adults are corrupted by money and power by the time they can vote at age 16. Anyone over 15 should not be allowed to vote as they are boomers who were around before instagram even existed.
|
1d0kcex
|
CMV: 16 Year olds should be allowed to vote in the UK.
|
In the UK general election, the Labour party are claiming they will allow 16 Year olds to vote in elections.
I've seen commentators ridiculing the idea of giving votes to children. And yet those 'children', can, in the UK;
- Have consensual sex
- By extension of the above, have children and be legally responsible for them
- have a full time job
- as an extension of the above, pay taxes
-drink alcohol with a meal
- drive a moped
- drive a car in some circumstances (when it's needed as part of a personal independence plan as support for a disability)
-join the army
It's completely inconsistent to agree with these points, particularly the first 4, but claim they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
If you think the age of consent, and thus legal responsibility for a child, and of getting a full time job, and therefore paying taxes, should be 18, along side the age of voting , I have no issue with you, you're holding a reasonable and consistent position.
To change my view, you need to show me why the above rights are fair at 16 but the right to vote is not.
| 1,716,667,576
|
NJH_in_LDN
|
l5nno4m
|
l5nmq79
| 2
| 0
|
Cmv: Patriarchy will never go away, because it needs men to enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchy
Men are the enforcement arm of society. Men have the monopoly on force. The only thing stopping laws from simply being ignored is the threat of physical force. Since men have the monopoly on force, feminism would need men to enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchal society. That will never happen. Especially since most men clearly hate feminism.
Even if in some hypothetical world, men were to collectively enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchal society it would be an illusion. How could you really have egalitarianism or a matriarchal system if you have to appeal to a patriarchal system to give it to you and at any time could choose to end said system.
|
Authority isn’t based on physical force.
How does a weak, unarmed man command thousands of strong, armed men?
Why hasn’t the military just already taken over liberal democracies and declared martial law?
You need to think a bit more deeply about how power structures actually work.
|
All women need do is stop birthing male babies, if they're forced to birth male babies, they can refuse to raise them for the years it takes for a man to reach physical maturity.
Men are already pissed that women won't birth babies worldwide.
|
1d0nvz8
|
Cmv: Patriarchy will never go away, because it needs men to enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchy
|
Men are the enforcement arm of society. Men have the monopoly on force. The only thing stopping laws from simply being ignored is the threat of physical force. Since men have the monopoly on force, feminism would need men to enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchal society. That will never happen. Especially since most men clearly hate feminism.
Even if in some hypothetical world, men were to collectively enforce egalitarianism or a matriarchal society it would be an illusion. How could you really have egalitarianism or a matriarchal system if you have to appeal to a patriarchal system to give it to you and at any time could choose to end said system.
| 1,716,678,045
|
Adept_Blackberry2851
|
l5pkk8v
|
l5oblt8
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: Nuclear weapons are a bigger threat to world security than climate change.
Without wanting to downplay the very obvious risks of climate change, I still believe nuclear weapons to world security overall.
Climate change does threaten to upset things like food production, habitability, and so on, but this is a long-term process which has the potential to be mitigated with policy changes, lifestyle changes, advances in technology, etc. In the 2020s we’re already seeing much more extreme weather events than in previous eras, and yet for the most part global stability hasn’t been affected too much. I understand it could become more dire in later decades but there’s also no reason to believe that it’ll be completely catastrophic, or at least anything we won’t be able to manage with some sacrifices.
Nukes on the other hand still represent the supreme danger they did in the Cold War. Even just one low-level tactical nuke used on the battlefield would severely disrupt stability, trade, institutional security, and so on. The fact that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out every major population centre a dozen times over to me represents are far more obvious and direct threat to social stability in the long run than climate change - as risky as it is - ever could.
Change my view.
|
I don't think you can separate this kind of macro-risk, they're all deeply intertwined.
Climate change can make a country that has nuclear weapons more starved for resources and make it actually desperate enough to use its nukes. Conversely, the existence of nukes makes it harder to enforce painful but necessary climate policies internationally, which contributes to climate change. These are just two direct examples, but you can think of many other cross-effects like this that relate to these and other threats.
It doesn't really make sense to ask whether nukes are more or less dangerous than climate change, both contribute and amplify each other's contributions to the existential threats humanity faces in the near future.
|
The issue here is about odds.
A limited nuclear conflict would be bad and would have a lot of really bad outcomes.
An unlimited nuclear conflict would end civilization as we know it.
How do we assign the likelihoods of these things? In the next 100 years how likely do you think it is that we will have a limited nuclear conflict? How likely do you think it is that we will have an open nuclear war?
Because climate change is already happening. Things are already destabilizing and right now we don't have any way to turn that clock back. Might a solution be discovered? I guess, but my laymans understanding of the problem tells me that it probably wont. We're going to be incredibly lucky if we managed to keep the damage to 1.5c, and if we get to 3c we're probably looking at such catostrophic damage that society as we know it will also collapse.
So on the one hand we have a threat that could happen. We have another threat that is already happening and isn't being mitigated in any way that we need to mitigate it to prevent truly terrible outcomes.
|
1d0oyj1
|
CMV: Nuclear weapons are a bigger threat to world security than climate change.
|
Without wanting to downplay the very obvious risks of climate change, I still believe nuclear weapons to world security overall.
Climate change does threaten to upset things like food production, habitability, and so on, but this is a long-term process which has the potential to be mitigated with policy changes, lifestyle changes, advances in technology, etc. In the 2020s we’re already seeing much more extreme weather events than in previous eras, and yet for the most part global stability hasn’t been affected too much. I understand it could become more dire in later decades but there’s also no reason to believe that it’ll be completely catastrophic, or at least anything we won’t be able to manage with some sacrifices.
Nukes on the other hand still represent the supreme danger they did in the Cold War. Even just one low-level tactical nuke used on the battlefield would severely disrupt stability, trade, institutional security, and so on. The fact that we have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out every major population centre a dozen times over to me represents are far more obvious and direct threat to social stability in the long run than climate change - as risky as it is - ever could.
Change my view.
| 1,716,681,423
|
country-blue
|
l5ojebt
|
l5oi5h2
| 23
| 7
|
CMV: I believe that content creators whose sole content is criminality should become automatic felons
Just as I said above there. Anyone who makes content specifically around engaging in criminal activity should become felons by way of the law criminalizing this specific activity as 'Criminal Infamy' or some such and it should be considered a felony. Even if the criminal activity is as minor as shop lifting, if they are making content on them doing it they should be slapped with this felony charge and it should be considered to be aggravated by default to carry a heavier sentence. It's not just because I hate that they do this of course but the ramifications of this kind of 'content generation'.
It demonstrates a lack of shame and respect for others. Someone who does this, and does this for views, is deriving heightened pleasure from doing so and is doing so for that specific purpose. To such a degree they are willing to ignore their own basic survival by putting themselves at risk of prison time to do this. Not only that though it may be inspiring to other individuals like minded enough to go out and commit crimes like these that haven't yet done so by making it seem normal and acceptable. Now that's always something that is going to be a problem, be it on parts of the internet or with friend groups or otherwise that trend in that direction, but I think it's fair to dry a hard line in the sand and say that even this is a step too far and if you do this shit you will get bent for it and subjected to the long hard dick of the law as to example to everyone else, especially the followers.
And I think by extension these social media platforms could also be criminally liable as accomplices for this too. Granted I would be more lenient on them than the perp themselves, there's a lot of bullshit they got rummage through so they got their hands full. But reports of criminality should always be human reviewed, not by an automatic system, and even if not if they routinely ignore sleuths of reports of criminality in content without human investigation or action for a single specific offender, who winds up being Criminally Infamous (meaning their content is criminality) I think they should get slapped out of them too. This isn't as much for Youtube or Twitch and the other stuff so much as it is for fucking Kik. And I think at the extreme that the criminality is a form of content there, they should be criminally liable for 'Sponsoring Criminal Infamy' and people in positions of authority should face the same sentences as those responsible for Criminal Infamy themselves.
What do you think? Am I being too draconian and should temper that down a bit? Curious to see what other people think and help form my view on this based on feedback outside of my own headspace.
|
The issue with this is that something can be a crime in one area and legal in another. Is it based on where you live? Where you recorded the video? Where every person who watched lives?
Like somebody could smoke weed in a video, live in a place where it’s legal, and they’re legally partaking, and someone could watch from a place where it’s illegal. Does that make it justified to make them a felon, when they were doing something legal on video? I’d think not, and I think that’s something most would agree with.
Okay, so if it’s based on where it was recorded, what if they do it in a place where it’s illegal. How does anybody know? “They live in Texas” “A yeah but this was recorded when I was visiting Colorado” “Well the date it was posted also happens to be a day you were working in your home state” “Yes, but the video was recorded months beforehand, although I don’t have the original copy and couldn’t provide an exact date”. Since they don’t have to prove they’re innocent, but rather, it’d have to be proven that they’re guilty, how would this be done reliably?
It just becomes convoluted. And also, is it for every law? Because there are some laws that aren’t enforced, that we’ve kind of ignored because people wouldn’t even know these dumb ass laws exist. So then, we’d have to determine which laws would be enforced this way, and how it’d be applied based on local laws. It’s just a big mess that’s not really an issue I’ve seen? Like I don’t see a lot of videos of people showcasing criminal content. I’m sure it exists, but like, it’s fighting a battle I don’t think is worth the time, effort, and tax dollars it’d cost.
|
I wouldn't attribute it to malice or anything, the sheer volume of content uploaded to a site like Youtube or Facebook means some things are almost inevitably going to slip through the cracks of whatever system they put in place. But i would expect clear lines of communication back and forth with law enforcement would allow them to put a rush on say, taking down a video posted by someone they have in custody, while also offering a chance to send those videos on to law enforcement before they are deleted by some automated filter who's primary purpose is just to remove anything that will cause the company issues either legally or with advertisers.
|
1d0p2q2
|
CMV: I believe that content creators whose sole content is criminality should become automatic felons
|
Just as I said above there. Anyone who makes content specifically around engaging in criminal activity should become felons by way of the law criminalizing this specific activity as 'Criminal Infamy' or some such and it should be considered a felony. Even if the criminal activity is as minor as shop lifting, if they are making content on them doing it they should be slapped with this felony charge and it should be considered to be aggravated by default to carry a heavier sentence. It's not just because I hate that they do this of course but the ramifications of this kind of 'content generation'.
It demonstrates a lack of shame and respect for others. Someone who does this, and does this for views, is deriving heightened pleasure from doing so and is doing so for that specific purpose. To such a degree they are willing to ignore their own basic survival by putting themselves at risk of prison time to do this. Not only that though it may be inspiring to other individuals like minded enough to go out and commit crimes like these that haven't yet done so by making it seem normal and acceptable. Now that's always something that is going to be a problem, be it on parts of the internet or with friend groups or otherwise that trend in that direction, but I think it's fair to dry a hard line in the sand and say that even this is a step too far and if you do this shit you will get bent for it and subjected to the long hard dick of the law as to example to everyone else, especially the followers.
And I think by extension these social media platforms could also be criminally liable as accomplices for this too. Granted I would be more lenient on them than the perp themselves, there's a lot of bullshit they got rummage through so they got their hands full. But reports of criminality should always be human reviewed, not by an automatic system, and even if not if they routinely ignore sleuths of reports of criminality in content without human investigation or action for a single specific offender, who winds up being Criminally Infamous (meaning their content is criminality) I think they should get slapped out of them too. This isn't as much for Youtube or Twitch and the other stuff so much as it is for fucking Kik. And I think at the extreme that the criminality is a form of content there, they should be criminally liable for 'Sponsoring Criminal Infamy' and people in positions of authority should face the same sentences as those responsible for Criminal Infamy themselves.
What do you think? Am I being too draconian and should temper that down a bit? Curious to see what other people think and help form my view on this based on feedback outside of my own headspace.
| 1,716,681,792
|
ContraMans
|
l5p5rzu
|
l5oowk3
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: Pizza is better than a hotdog or a burger.
The age old question: burger, pizza, or hotdog? The answer is clearly a pizza. Nothing compares to a good, cheesy, hot, pizza. Not a burger of the same quality, nor a hotdog of the same quality. Also, pizzas have the most versatility. You can put the most toppings on a pizza and even change the dough, sauce, etc. however you want. Your only limit is your imagination. Can you do that with a burger or a hot dog? Maybe so, but it wouldn’t look the best if its not on a pizza. Lastly, pizzas are just an all the time craving. Say its a dark gloomy day, and you really want some junk food to lighten up the mood. Do you want a bland old hamburger? Or a hotdog? Nah, you’ll order yourself a nice pizza tailored to your likings. Pizzas solo over a burger and a hotdog, no doubt.
|
This is entirely subject to personal taste, but imo none is better than the other, it depends on your mood.
I generally don't care about hotdogs, but if I'm in a burger mood a pizza won't satisfy me. A pizza and a burger of the same quality can be just as good as the other depending on what you feel like at the moment.
Especially if I'm alone, if I buy a pizza it'll be out of gluttony to last me for the night or the next day, and it's not really that filling. A good burger will be way more satisfying and will probably solve my hunger for the night.
Also, when we talk about 'same quality'...idk, personally I'd take a McDonald's or Burger King burger over the shitty Domino's/Pizza Hut pizzas any day. A low quality burger can still be satisfying, but bad pizza just sucks and leaves a sour taste in your mouth.
|
Beer is better than wine
Salt is better than pepper
Trees are better than shrubs
Crows are better than eagles
Green is better than blue
Paper is better than tinfoil
three is better than four
Coffee is better than tea
Up is better than down
Your lungs are better than your liver
Pens are better than pencils
Tennyson is better than Yeats
Toyota is better than Mitsubishi
Scissors are better than hammers
Spoons are better than forks
Headphones are better than earbuds
Baileys is better than whiskey
Yogurt is better than cheese
Armchairs are better than sofas
Projectors are better than TVs
Matches are better than lighters
Scrambled eggs are better than hardboiled
Guitars are better than violins
Microwaves are better than ovens
etc etc etc etc etc - Your view is subjective - *there is no correct answer*
|
1d0qc20
|
CMV: Pizza is better than a hotdog or a burger.
|
The age old question: burger, pizza, or hotdog? The answer is clearly a pizza. Nothing compares to a good, cheesy, hot, pizza. Not a burger of the same quality, nor a hotdog of the same quality. Also, pizzas have the most versatility. You can put the most toppings on a pizza and even change the dough, sauce, etc. however you want. Your only limit is your imagination. Can you do that with a burger or a hot dog? Maybe so, but it wouldn’t look the best if its not on a pizza. Lastly, pizzas are just an all the time craving. Say its a dark gloomy day, and you really want some junk food to lighten up the mood. Do you want a bland old hamburger? Or a hotdog? Nah, you’ll order yourself a nice pizza tailored to your likings. Pizzas solo over a burger and a hotdog, no doubt.
| 1,716,686,099
|
regarding_my_person
|
l5ot441
|
l5oriho
| 8
| 2
|
CMV: I Find People Screaming Free Palestine Disgusting.
It was insanely wild to watch everyone switch back and forth between isreal and palestine, like everyone was so urgently tryna pick a side. Now everyone has decided on supporting Palestine.
They are both fucking disgusting countries and Im sick of hearing about their backwards religious 3rd world shit. There is no right and there is no wrong there. All anyone wants to do is spread their religious fucking plague. It sucks for the civilians and its horrendous with what Israel is doing but this shit has been going back and forth for hundreds of years and its all religiously fuelled.
Im sick of hearing about these countries, not just Isreal and Palestine and I have no pity for anyone in any of their shithole countries anymore. Didn't they literally vote to elect the hamas anyway? It's a whole shitfight fuck you, nah fuck you nah fuck you, nah fuck you! Kinda situation.
I can see this post as being closed minded and hateful, I have a lot of hate inside me and it kinda sucks but Im open to having my mind changed.
Also if you are a Christian I don't want to hear anything from you, you hypocritical bastards. Christ has caused just as many wars, tyrannical leaderships, genocides and innocents to be tortured. The OG sheep herders, Roman Catholic Church literally went to a private Lutheran school with Sheperd in the name. You are all disgusting, how could you ever believe in something with such rotten, flawed and tainted roots. It's all about control.
Mb for any grammatical errors I'm tired and cbf rn.
|
I understand you see both sides as assholes who are killing each other, and I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise, but the cry of "Free Palestine" is not about Palestine being a better country than Israel or a side to take in the war. "Free Palestine" is about a specific issue, which is that Israel has had the entire state/territory of Palestine under military occupation for decades and has given no indication that they will be allowed to rule themselves or have any input into their governance, which is a very clear and obvious human rights violation, arguably going so far as to be outright apartheid. It does not require you to like Palestine or the Palestinian people to agree that this human rights violation should end, and being "disgusted" by it is essentially the same as being offended by "end apartheid" or "support women's rights." Which, if you do not agree that Palestinians are human or deserve human rights, that's your opinion but if you think they do deserve rights then you should not be disgusted by a call for it.
|
Geopolitical conflicts don't just stop because you're "sick of them" or you "don't care." They continue to happen and they affect the stability of their larger regions and they will find ways to affect your day to day life in any number of ways. Take for example the Houthis recently attacking ships entering the Suez Canal and affecting the international supply chain over this conflict. Because of that international governments need to be on top of this conflict whether you think it's stupid or not, and if our government is going to be involved in it, citizens need to play some role in directing their government to handle the situation one way or other other.
|
1d0suz3
|
CMV: I Find People Screaming Free Palestine Disgusting.
|
It was insanely wild to watch everyone switch back and forth between isreal and palestine, like everyone was so urgently tryna pick a side. Now everyone has decided on supporting Palestine.
They are both fucking disgusting countries and Im sick of hearing about their backwards religious 3rd world shit. There is no right and there is no wrong there. All anyone wants to do is spread their religious fucking plague. It sucks for the civilians and its horrendous with what Israel is doing but this shit has been going back and forth for hundreds of years and its all religiously fuelled.
Im sick of hearing about these countries, not just Isreal and Palestine and I have no pity for anyone in any of their shithole countries anymore. Didn't they literally vote to elect the hamas anyway? It's a whole shitfight fuck you, nah fuck you nah fuck you, nah fuck you! Kinda situation.
I can see this post as being closed minded and hateful, I have a lot of hate inside me and it kinda sucks but Im open to having my mind changed.
Also if you are a Christian I don't want to hear anything from you, you hypocritical bastards. Christ has caused just as many wars, tyrannical leaderships, genocides and innocents to be tortured. The OG sheep herders, Roman Catholic Church literally went to a private Lutheran school with Sheperd in the name. You are all disgusting, how could you ever believe in something with such rotten, flawed and tainted roots. It's all about control.
Mb for any grammatical errors I'm tired and cbf rn.
| 1,716,695,274
|
satanisntevil
|
l5pbefr
|
l5pb5rc
| 15
| 3
|
CMV: It's a good thing that former President Carter didn't get to keep his peanut farm
I generally see people say he should've been allowed to keep his farm, but I disagree. Here's why:
1. Conflict of interest. A president's three duties should be serving the American people, serving the world, and upholding the laws by which he is bound. These can, at times, conflict with running or owning a business.
2. Precedent. Let's say Carter wouldn't prioritize his interests as a farmer over his duty as president: So what? Do you trust every other president and politician to not place their own wealth, power, and businesses above their duties? I hope you don't, since that'd be absurd. Rulers should be governed with laws, not precedent or honor systems, since honor systems only work to restrain the honorable, and those at the mercy of the honorable. As soon as someone who's dishonorable and powerful enough not to care about what the honorable do, they'll do whatever benefits them, which sucks for everyone else.
|
I don't see what the point of this argument is - very few people are arguing that Carter shouldn't have had to divest himself from his businesses in a vaccuum, rather, they're arguing that in the context of Donald Trump being allowed to do whatever the fuck he wanted and basically profit off of being President by making his golf resort the "winter white house"
You know like that's the reason people are bringing up the peanut farm thing, not reasons that actually have to do with the peanut farm. In light of that it's pretty funny that 'Precedent' is one of your arguments, because obviously, that failed, right? Setting the right precedent with Carter, it turns out, accomplished jack shit for future generations
|
I am sure that he recused himself from any legislation affecting peanut-farm economics, which is the only way there would be a conflict of interest. The rest of your "views" are mindnumbingly dull jibberish.
|
1d0vc70
|
CMV: It's a good thing that former President Carter didn't get to keep his peanut farm
|
I generally see people say he should've been allowed to keep his farm, but I disagree. Here's why:
1. Conflict of interest. A president's three duties should be serving the American people, serving the world, and upholding the laws by which he is bound. These can, at times, conflict with running or owning a business.
2. Precedent. Let's say Carter wouldn't prioritize his interests as a farmer over his duty as president: So what? Do you trust every other president and politician to not place their own wealth, power, and businesses above their duties? I hope you don't, since that'd be absurd. Rulers should be governed with laws, not precedent or honor systems, since honor systems only work to restrain the honorable, and those at the mercy of the honorable. As soon as someone who's dishonorable and powerful enough not to care about what the honorable do, they'll do whatever benefits them, which sucks for everyone else.
| 1,716,705,182
|
Physical_Bedroom5656
|
l5ppir8
|
l5ppiib
| 61
| 9
|
CMV: Morality is objective because we have universal right and wrong consensus.
This is my view, TLDR, because there are many red lines that sane people simply will not cross, no matter the time period, culture or individual preferences.
Such as baby torture or baby rape or baby murder.
You may argue that some people still torture, rape and murder babies, but they are usually not sane when examined by medical experts and even the "sane' ones are not really normal people, as they have very little to no empathy for others and suffer from some form of psychopathy or sociopathy, making it very difficult to stop their "evil" urges, even if they know its wrong. They are like drug addicts who can't stop but they know its bad for them.
So, as long as these baselines or red lines exist and are near universal for most people, this means we have a foundation for objective morality, regardless of other debatable nuances, because we could always refer back to the baselines/red lines and not deviate too far from what most of us believe to be moral. The nuances are just different ways to service the baselines/red lines, to make it better.
I seriously doubt you could argue that baby rapists, baby torturers and baby killers believe their actions are justified or "good" in any way whatsoever, I doubt they themselves believe their actions are justifiable, they know they are wrong, they just can't stop their abnormal urges.
So yeah, as long as we have these long standing and unchanging consensus about baselines/red lines in morality, then objective morality exists.
​
|
Morality absolutely varies across cultures and time. There are places where they stone women to death for marital infidelity. It's gross and weird in some places not to mutilate infant girls' genitals. It's gross and weird in America not to mutilate infant boys'. Certain acts/intentions are more or less popular across the dataset, but people are capable of justifying a lot when they feel like they have to.
|
> Could it be that they don't want the potential child to suffer, because the parents are unable to care for it at the time? That would indeed be justifiable, as this is how we justify most abortions.
> I seriously doubt you could argue that baby rapists, baby torturers and baby killers believe their actions are justified or "good" in any way whatsoever, I doubt they themselves believe their actions are justifiable, they know they are wrong, they just can't stop their abnormal urges.
|
1d13027
|
CMV: Morality is objective because we have universal right and wrong consensus.
|
This is my view, TLDR, because there are many red lines that sane people simply will not cross, no matter the time period, culture or individual preferences.
Such as baby torture or baby rape or baby murder.
You may argue that some people still torture, rape and murder babies, but they are usually not sane when examined by medical experts and even the "sane' ones are not really normal people, as they have very little to no empathy for others and suffer from some form of psychopathy or sociopathy, making it very difficult to stop their "evil" urges, even if they know its wrong. They are like drug addicts who can't stop but they know its bad for them.
So, as long as these baselines or red lines exist and are near universal for most people, this means we have a foundation for objective morality, regardless of other debatable nuances, because we could always refer back to the baselines/red lines and not deviate too far from what most of us believe to be moral. The nuances are just different ways to service the baselines/red lines, to make it better.
I seriously doubt you could argue that baby rapists, baby torturers and baby killers believe their actions are justified or "good" in any way whatsoever, I doubt they themselves believe their actions are justifiable, they know they are wrong, they just can't stop their abnormal urges.
So yeah, as long as we have these long standing and unchanging consensus about baselines/red lines in morality, then objective morality exists.
​
| 1,716,734,918
|
WeekendFantastic2941
|
l5r5dl8
|
l5r45ak
| 2
| 1
|
CMV: For movies, physical Media is better than Streaming
Physical media, like Blu-rays and 4K UHD discs, provide higher bitrates and uncompressed audio and video, resulting in clearer images and richer sound compared to streaming, which compresses content to save bandwidth.
Streaming quality depends on internet speed and stability, whereas physical media offers consistent high-quality playback without buffering or downgrading. Owning a physical disc means no licensing agreements or subscription fees, allowing you to watch your movies anytime without relying on third-party services. Physical media also comes with bonus content like director’s commentaries and behind-the-scenes features, rarely available on streaming platforms.
Special edition releases, steelbooks, and box sets are collectible, with unique packaging and artwork that enhance the viewing experience. Physical discs can be watched without an internet connection, making them ideal for areas with poor internet access or to avoid buffering issues. They are not subject to internet outages, throttling, or data caps and generally do not have ads.
Streaming services may lose rights to movies and TV shows, leading to their removal, but physical media provides long-term access. Physical media also allows better control over what content is available in your home, crucial for managing children's viewing. It plays a key role in preserving film history, as movies stored on physical formats are less vulnerable to digital platform changes.
Films on physical media are often presented in their original formats, preserving the director’s intended aspect ratio and sound mix. Although streaming offers convenience, many complain about movies being too dark or having poor sound quality. Collecting physical media can resolve these issues. Moreover, physical discs can be backed up to hard drives, making it easier to safeguard and access your collection compared to ripping streams.
Additionally, the cost of streaming services can add up quickly. For example, Netflix charges nearly $16 per month for HD quality. Over a year, this amounts to around $192, which could instead be invested in purchasing several high-quality physical discs. Over time, building a collection of physical media can be more cost-effective and provide better value, as you own the content outright and are not subject to recurring subscription fees.
Furthermore, the rise of streaming services has significantly impacted the entertainment industry, often to its detriment. Streaming platforms prioritize quantity over quality, leading to a surge in mass-produced content while devaluing the work of creators. They also reduce the financial returns for filmmakers and studios compared to physical media sales. This shift harms the sustainability of the industry and limits the ability to fund high-quality productions. By supporting physical media, consumers can contribute to a healthier industry that values artistic integrity and provides fair compensation to creators.
Note, I’m really only talking about movies. I don’t watch a ton of television and really can’t speak to the benefits for streaming concerning episodic content.
|
Streaming is more convenient. That's literally all it's trying to do. Even if I already own the video I have to put it in, watch it's little warnings and then watch the video. If it's on prime or whatever it's just a search and play away.
If you want the best quality and dont care about convience physical media is absolutely better
|
> higher bitrates and uncompressed audio and video, resulting in clearer images and richer sound compared to streaming,
I’ll never notice this on my $200 36 inch Walmart Black Friday tv.
|
1d14f1z
|
CMV: For movies, physical Media is better than Streaming
|
Physical media, like Blu-rays and 4K UHD discs, provide higher bitrates and uncompressed audio and video, resulting in clearer images and richer sound compared to streaming, which compresses content to save bandwidth.
Streaming quality depends on internet speed and stability, whereas physical media offers consistent high-quality playback without buffering or downgrading. Owning a physical disc means no licensing agreements or subscription fees, allowing you to watch your movies anytime without relying on third-party services. Physical media also comes with bonus content like director’s commentaries and behind-the-scenes features, rarely available on streaming platforms.
Special edition releases, steelbooks, and box sets are collectible, with unique packaging and artwork that enhance the viewing experience. Physical discs can be watched without an internet connection, making them ideal for areas with poor internet access or to avoid buffering issues. They are not subject to internet outages, throttling, or data caps and generally do not have ads.
Streaming services may lose rights to movies and TV shows, leading to their removal, but physical media provides long-term access. Physical media also allows better control over what content is available in your home, crucial for managing children's viewing. It plays a key role in preserving film history, as movies stored on physical formats are less vulnerable to digital platform changes.
Films on physical media are often presented in their original formats, preserving the director’s intended aspect ratio and sound mix. Although streaming offers convenience, many complain about movies being too dark or having poor sound quality. Collecting physical media can resolve these issues. Moreover, physical discs can be backed up to hard drives, making it easier to safeguard and access your collection compared to ripping streams.
Additionally, the cost of streaming services can add up quickly. For example, Netflix charges nearly $16 per month for HD quality. Over a year, this amounts to around $192, which could instead be invested in purchasing several high-quality physical discs. Over time, building a collection of physical media can be more cost-effective and provide better value, as you own the content outright and are not subject to recurring subscription fees.
Furthermore, the rise of streaming services has significantly impacted the entertainment industry, often to its detriment. Streaming platforms prioritize quantity over quality, leading to a surge in mass-produced content while devaluing the work of creators. They also reduce the financial returns for filmmakers and studios compared to physical media sales. This shift harms the sustainability of the industry and limits the ability to fund high-quality productions. By supporting physical media, consumers can contribute to a healthier industry that values artistic integrity and provides fair compensation to creators.
Note, I’m really only talking about movies. I don’t watch a ton of television and really can’t speak to the benefits for streaming concerning episodic content.
| 1,716,738,945
|
Danjour
|
l5rm3ay
|
l5rf05q
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: The Government (of America) should create a website that allows free speech to put a stop to any "meaningful" arguments about Censorship by websites/server hosts.
So there's been a continuous uptick in people being upset about websites and website hosting servers being able to restrict what websites can say or allow others to say without penalty.
This argument is essentially saying that these groups are stopping free speech because the Internet is like the town square of old, where anyone could go there and shout whatever nonsense they wanted.
So to avoid any arguments about this, the government should create a website called "YourTownSquare" or something and break it up by state/county and have it be allowed for any free speech. This way, you can go there, type what you want (that's legal) and no one can say or do anything.
This way, no one can argue that the Internet needs to be a place of free speech because it already is on that site.
"Meaningful" in quotes because anyone can argue anything for any reason, but most of those would be outlandish and unreasonable so can be ignored.
|
"This argument is essentially saying that these groups are stopping free speech because the Internet is like the town square of old, where anyone could go there and shout whatever nonsense they wanted. "
And the problem with the argument is that the Internet is more like the town square of the 90s - a privately controlled and owned shopping mall.
"So to avoid any arguments about this, the government should create a website called "YourTownSquare" or something and break it up by state/county and have it be allowed for any free speech."
Would that actually avoid any arguments? People aren't upset that they can't say what they want in a publicly visible fashion, they're upset because they can't say it in venues with an audience.
"This way, you can go there, type what you want (that's legal) and no one can say or do anything. "
How do you intend to enforce "no one can say or do anything"? My employer sees me post a racial slur what's stopping them from firing me?
"This way, no one can argue that the Internet needs to be a place of free speech because it already is on that site."
Free webhosts already exist. Self hosting is not that hard. What people care about isn't being somewhere on the Internet, they care about having an audience.
|
> This way, no one can argue that the Internet needs to be a place of free speech because it already is on that site.
There is no need for this. Anyone with a computer can already host their own website and spout whatever crazy message they want. If you have an internet connection you have an IP address, and you can open up port 80 to allow HTTP traffic.
Everyone can do that already. Of course you would need people to actually type in your IP address, or you could pay a pittance to make a DNS point to your IP with a more attractive web address.
|
1d14ot5
|
CMV: The Government (of America) should create a website that allows free speech to put a stop to any "meaningful" arguments about Censorship by websites/server hosts.
|
So there's been a continuous uptick in people being upset about websites and website hosting servers being able to restrict what websites can say or allow others to say without penalty.
This argument is essentially saying that these groups are stopping free speech because the Internet is like the town square of old, where anyone could go there and shout whatever nonsense they wanted.
So to avoid any arguments about this, the government should create a website called "YourTownSquare" or something and break it up by state/county and have it be allowed for any free speech. This way, you can go there, type what you want (that's legal) and no one can say or do anything.
This way, no one can argue that the Internet needs to be a place of free speech because it already is on that site.
"Meaningful" in quotes because anyone can argue anything for any reason, but most of those would be outlandish and unreasonable so can be ignored.
| 1,716,739,676
|
Cockhero43
|
l5rflss
|
l5rff6g
| 19
| 4
|
CMV: The Amish are a harmful cult that is only accepted because they worship a God similar to christianity.
The Amish are a religious group that shuns non members, Emphasizes a strict list of rules, separates its members from the outside world and creates an environment where leaving is extremely difficult and often dangerous.
Amish parents are often physically abusive and tend to treat children as objects rather than people. The women in Amish society are seen as lesser than their husbands and in extreme cases are only given worth based on how many children they have.
American Society turns a blind eye to this because they use the same religious book as the major religion of Christianity.
|
They come close in some ways but they avoid cultishness in some crucial other ways. First, they can leave, no attempt is made to hold their spouse or property or safety hostage as cults do. Second, they d don't proselytize. Third they don't exploit their members. They aren't giving sexual favors to the leadership, aren't being asked to give money so their leaders can live lavishly, all the *point* of a cult is absent.
|
I'm in agreement with most of what you said, but it's really easy for me to reword your last sentence as, it's just as much of a cult as the other religions.
If Amish ideology began today, everyone would see it as what it is.
If we think of religions as being on a sliding scale of cultishness, the Amish would be much further on that scale than most of the mainstream religions in the US.
|
1d15d28
|
CMV: The Amish are a harmful cult that is only accepted because they worship a God similar to christianity.
|
The Amish are a religious group that shuns non members, Emphasizes a strict list of rules, separates its members from the outside world and creates an environment where leaving is extremely difficult and often dangerous.
Amish parents are often physically abusive and tend to treat children as objects rather than people. The women in Amish society are seen as lesser than their husbands and in extreme cases are only given worth based on how many children they have.
American Society turns a blind eye to this because they use the same religious book as the major religion of Christianity.
| 1,716,741,588
|
Dmillz648
|
l5rqgrf
|
l5rlev7
| 369
| 4
|
CMV: It is important to accept depression as a natural part of life. This acceptance lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of happiness.
Whenever you are depressed, wait for the moment that the depression goes.
Nothing lasts forever; the depression will go. And when it leaves you, wait - be aware and alert - because after the depression, after the night, there will be a dawn and the sun will rise. If you can be alert in that moment. you will he happy that you were depressed. You will be grateful that you are depressed because only through your depression was this mint of happiness possible But what do we do? We move in an infinite regression We yet depressed. Then we yet depressed because of the depression: a second depression follows. If you are depressed. that's okay! - nothing is wrong in it. It is beautiful because through it you will learn and mature. But then you feel badly. "Why do I get depressed? I should not get depressed." Then you start fighting with the depression. The first depression is good, but the second depression is unreal. And this unreal depression will cloud your mind. You will miss the moment that would have followed the real depression.
When depressed, be depressed. Simply be depressed. Don't get depressed about your depression.
When depressed, simply be depressed. Don't fight it, don't create any diversion, don't force it to go.
Just allow it to happen; it will go by itself. Life is a flux; nothing remains the same. You are not needed; the river moves by itself, you don't have to push it. If you are trying to push it, you are simply foolish. The river flows by itself. Allow it to flow.
When depression is there, allow it to be. Don't get depressed about it. If you want to remove it sooner, you will get depressed. If you fight it, you will create a secondary depression that is dangerous. The first depression is beautiful, God-given. The second depression is your own. It is not God-given; it is mental. Then you will move in mental grooves. They are infinite.
If you get depressed, be happy that you are depressed and allow the depression to be. Then suddenly the depression will disappear and there will be a breakthrough. No clouds will be there and the sky will be clear. For a single moment, heaven opens for you. If you are not depressed about your depression you can contact, you can commune, you can enter this heavenly gate. And once you know it, you have learned one of the ultimate laws of life: that life uses the opposite as a teacher, as a back-ground.
Nothing is wrong; everything is for the good. This is what religious attitude is. You may not believe in God - that makes no difference. Buddha never believed in God. Mahavir never believed in God but they were religious. There is no need to believe in an afterlife no need. You can still be religious. There is no need even to believe in a soul. You can be religious without believing in it.
Then what is religion? Religion means this trust: that everything is for the good. This trust that everything is for the good is a religious mind; this is religiousness.
And if you trust that everything is for the good, you will come to realize the divine. The divine can be realized through such trust. Even the storm is for the sake of the silence. Evil exists for the sake of good; death exists for the sake of life; suffering and agony are just situations in which ecstasy can happen.
Look at life in this way and the moment will not be far off when suffering will disappear completely, when pain will disappear completely, when death will disappear completely. One who knows that agony exists for the sake of ecstasy cannot be agonized. One who knows and feels and realizes that suffering exists for the sake of happiness cannot be made to suffer. It is impossible. He is using suffering itself to be more happy, he is using agony itself as a step toward ecstasy. He has gone beyond the clutches of the world, he has taken a jump out of the wheel of sansar.
|
You are approaching this from a perspective of typical depression or common depression. Clinical depression is different. The person might not have the skill to turn their life around. The depression might last so long they cant turn it around
|
The losers who want to make excuses for their own/everyone else’s personal failures are going to hate this one.
Predicting now that it’s going to be the typical useless sandbagging you see in this subreddit: *”I’m confused by your question/I don’t understand your premise”*
|
1d15ovi
|
CMV: It is important to accept depression as a natural part of life. This acceptance lead to personal growth and a deeper understanding of happiness.
|
Whenever you are depressed, wait for the moment that the depression goes.
Nothing lasts forever; the depression will go. And when it leaves you, wait - be aware and alert - because after the depression, after the night, there will be a dawn and the sun will rise. If you can be alert in that moment. you will he happy that you were depressed. You will be grateful that you are depressed because only through your depression was this mint of happiness possible But what do we do? We move in an infinite regression We yet depressed. Then we yet depressed because of the depression: a second depression follows. If you are depressed. that's okay! - nothing is wrong in it. It is beautiful because through it you will learn and mature. But then you feel badly. "Why do I get depressed? I should not get depressed." Then you start fighting with the depression. The first depression is good, but the second depression is unreal. And this unreal depression will cloud your mind. You will miss the moment that would have followed the real depression.
When depressed, be depressed. Simply be depressed. Don't get depressed about your depression.
When depressed, simply be depressed. Don't fight it, don't create any diversion, don't force it to go.
Just allow it to happen; it will go by itself. Life is a flux; nothing remains the same. You are not needed; the river moves by itself, you don't have to push it. If you are trying to push it, you are simply foolish. The river flows by itself. Allow it to flow.
When depression is there, allow it to be. Don't get depressed about it. If you want to remove it sooner, you will get depressed. If you fight it, you will create a secondary depression that is dangerous. The first depression is beautiful, God-given. The second depression is your own. It is not God-given; it is mental. Then you will move in mental grooves. They are infinite.
If you get depressed, be happy that you are depressed and allow the depression to be. Then suddenly the depression will disappear and there will be a breakthrough. No clouds will be there and the sky will be clear. For a single moment, heaven opens for you. If you are not depressed about your depression you can contact, you can commune, you can enter this heavenly gate. And once you know it, you have learned one of the ultimate laws of life: that life uses the opposite as a teacher, as a back-ground.
Nothing is wrong; everything is for the good. This is what religious attitude is. You may not believe in God - that makes no difference. Buddha never believed in God. Mahavir never believed in God but they were religious. There is no need to believe in an afterlife no need. You can still be religious. There is no need even to believe in a soul. You can be religious without believing in it.
Then what is religion? Religion means this trust: that everything is for the good. This trust that everything is for the good is a religious mind; this is religiousness.
And if you trust that everything is for the good, you will come to realize the divine. The divine can be realized through such trust. Even the storm is for the sake of the silence. Evil exists for the sake of good; death exists for the sake of life; suffering and agony are just situations in which ecstasy can happen.
Look at life in this way and the moment will not be far off when suffering will disappear completely, when pain will disappear completely, when death will disappear completely. One who knows that agony exists for the sake of ecstasy cannot be agonized. One who knows and feels and realizes that suffering exists for the sake of happiness cannot be made to suffer. It is impossible. He is using suffering itself to be more happy, he is using agony itself as a step toward ecstasy. He has gone beyond the clutches of the world, he has taken a jump out of the wheel of sansar.
| 1,716,742,511
|
Suspicious_Ferret109
|
l5rofjn
|
l5rn28e
| 7
| -3
|
CMV: Socialism would prove disastrous if implemented in the US.
I am someone from outside the US who is planning to move there: there are many things I admire/appreciate about the US, but right now the current state of the political system is my biggest deterrent, with how polarized it has become in recent years, and now I've got one more thing to worry about: the rise of socialism in the country.
Up until very recently i Used to think the far left as a whole in the US was just another fringe movement with very little support... until I read a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Various polls suggest socialism is popular among young adults and there seems to be a lot of talking about AOC running for president in 2028 or 2032 (from my understanding, she's not a really a democrat: she's a DSA member through and through). Of course, if elected, she wouldn't be able to suddenly flip the economy by snapping the infinity gauntlet of something, which is why I think it would be more convenient for her to play a long game until socialism is popular enough to implement substantial policies.
Why do I think all of this is concerning? This Wikipedia article represent my opinions fairly well, really.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_socialism)
Now, I strongly doubt the US would fall to a far left dictatorship even in a highly speculative scenario, but I think the overall outcome would a substantially, though not irreversibly, tanked economy and severely curtailed individual rights (especially gun rights) that would lead a democratic socialist experiment to revert back to a capitalistic system.
|
When people talk about about "socialism" as a negative, thry always take it to the extreme end of what socialism is. But just like capitalism, it falls on a sliding scale.
We have a form of socialism in America right now with highways and fire departments and the "social safety net"
The problem that stops America from taking this further is the money in politics. When the Obamacare hearings were happening in congress, the insurance industry was spending 6 million dollars A DAY lobbying members of congress and spreading pr campaigns to stop it from happening. As a result, the American people pay double the OECD average for healthcare and get developing world health outcomes. The push back against "socialism" is really about maintaining the profits of companies that simply would cease to exist if socialised medicine existed in America.
If you want to see what America would be like with no actual socialism, watch a film about the American West before the civil war. There were no roads. Outside of the towns there were no one who enforced the law. If a river couldn't be crossed easily, someone might set up a ferry, and they could charge whatever they could get away with. "medication" could contain anything, or nothing.
Not a world I want to live in, we, as a country could be living so much better with a bit more socialism.
|
I disagree, without goalposts and firm definitions we're the at the mercy of people who call themselves socialists to redefine and frame the conversation how they like, which could lead to bias into the conversation as they have a bias to demonstrate socialism as better than it is.
>There are many different types and shades of socialism, and not all of them call for complete government takeover of all industries.
There is simply centralised, government control of economy or industry *or* you have the common lies that any form of welfare is socialism and only people who hate the poor hate socialism.
There is shades only so much as "control" and "power" can become difficult to define but it absolutely does mean some level of government take over.
Because welfare states aren't necessarily socialist.
>Rather, to create better safety nets and viable means for the impoverished classes to free themselves from the self perpetuating divide of haves and have not.
Which isn't socialism.
|
1d189u0
|
CMV: Socialism would prove disastrous if implemented in the US.
|
I am someone from outside the US who is planning to move there: there are many things I admire/appreciate about the US, but right now the current state of the political system is my biggest deterrent, with how polarized it has become in recent years, and now I've got one more thing to worry about: the rise of socialism in the country.
Up until very recently i Used to think the far left as a whole in the US was just another fringe movement with very little support... until I read a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Various polls suggest socialism is popular among young adults and there seems to be a lot of talking about AOC running for president in 2028 or 2032 (from my understanding, she's not a really a democrat: she's a DSA member through and through). Of course, if elected, she wouldn't be able to suddenly flip the economy by snapping the infinity gauntlet of something, which is why I think it would be more convenient for her to play a long game until socialism is popular enough to implement substantial policies.
Why do I think all of this is concerning? This Wikipedia article represent my opinions fairly well, really.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism\_of\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_socialism)
Now, I strongly doubt the US would fall to a far left dictatorship even in a highly speculative scenario, but I think the overall outcome would a substantially, though not irreversibly, tanked economy and severely curtailed individual rights (especially gun rights) that would lead a democratic socialist experiment to revert back to a capitalistic system.
| 1,716,749,520
|
88-81
|
l5u6e8f
|
l5t24oh
| 0
| -2
|
cmv: The Electoral College should not be winner takes all for each state
I've seen, over the years, plenty of arguments about the electoral college. Ranging from it being a hallmark of our country, a cornerstone that if changed would lead to everything falling, to being a cancerous stain upon what could otherwise be a democracy.
From where I stand, the biggest problem with the Electoral College is that each state is winner takes all. Look at Florida, for example. It is a state which, for the most part, is 50/50. A nail biter of counting, where nobody knows who will get all of the votes. Entire elections hinge upon such counting. And then other states, which are solidly blue or red....they don't matter. Because everyone knows which party is getting all of the votes.
So, where do I stand? If you get 50% of the votes in a state, then you get 50% of the electoral votes. Odd numbers go to whomever get more. Florida, for example, has 125 electoral votes. In 2020 Trump got 51% of vote, meaning he got all 125 electoral votes. I argue that he should have gotten 63.
By splitting it this way, every state becomes in play. Let's say democrats get 40% of the vote in Texas. Usually that would mean absolutely nothing, but now it means 40% of the electoral votes. The same for Republicans in say, California. This makes every state a battleground state, and every vote matters. Candidates can't ignore the vast majority of the country, and nobody would be able to shrug and say that their vote doesn't matter because of the state they live in.
I honestly can't see any downside to this. But when I posted something similar in a different subreddit, I got downvoted with no replies, and that means that there are different points of views. So, I'm posting this here, as I am willing to have my view changed on this.
|
The downside to this is that most of the time it would make the President designated by the House because no candidate would get to 270 votes.
|
Why stop there?
It seems like a half measure, but with your view in place what is functionally different from just removing the EC altogether?
|
1d1adl1
|
cmv: The Electoral College should not be winner takes all for each state
|
I've seen, over the years, plenty of arguments about the electoral college. Ranging from it being a hallmark of our country, a cornerstone that if changed would lead to everything falling, to being a cancerous stain upon what could otherwise be a democracy.
From where I stand, the biggest problem with the Electoral College is that each state is winner takes all. Look at Florida, for example. It is a state which, for the most part, is 50/50. A nail biter of counting, where nobody knows who will get all of the votes. Entire elections hinge upon such counting. And then other states, which are solidly blue or red....they don't matter. Because everyone knows which party is getting all of the votes.
So, where do I stand? If you get 50% of the votes in a state, then you get 50% of the electoral votes. Odd numbers go to whomever get more. Florida, for example, has 125 electoral votes. In 2020 Trump got 51% of vote, meaning he got all 125 electoral votes. I argue that he should have gotten 63.
By splitting it this way, every state becomes in play. Let's say democrats get 40% of the vote in Texas. Usually that would mean absolutely nothing, but now it means 40% of the electoral votes. The same for Republicans in say, California. This makes every state a battleground state, and every vote matters. Candidates can't ignore the vast majority of the country, and nobody would be able to shrug and say that their vote doesn't matter because of the state they live in.
I honestly can't see any downside to this. But when I posted something similar in a different subreddit, I got downvoted with no replies, and that means that there are different points of views. So, I'm posting this here, as I am willing to have my view changed on this.
| 1,716,755,277
|
Significant-Bother49
|
l5sqkgl
|
l5sllji
| 45
| 5
|
CMV: The IQ difference between races explains the wealth inequality in US
I posting a racial discriminatory (the correct kind) when I point out the outwardly violent nature and statistics of Black Americans, a while back. And of course it was met with an expectable Reddit response. I propose a new topic, following up. Of IQ differences in races (which would correlate with the violence stats ie: less iq, more violent).
It seems that it is proven without any counter evidence worth while from so many sources that there is IQ difference in races(just like any other physical differences which the brain is part of).
So if there is a IQ difference is races, wouldn’t be we expect to earning and life quality diff in the races, stratified by race?
So the globe is in perfect order. Low IQ people struggling(unfortunately seemingly brown) and high IQ people carrying on (mostly pale, but including Asians which makes it not white focused)
TLDR: poor people are poor because they have low IQ but they like to blame it on race.
Cue the “IQ is not real”
I know how to give deltas now so will be giving out quite liberally.
|
Nigerians living in America are wealthier on average than white Americans and East Asian Americans. Does this mean that Nigerians are just smarter than white Americans? If you believe that is the case, why is it that this group of west Africans is genetically more intelligent than their close genetic relatives (African Americans).
Or could it be that educational and professional achievement has little to do with genetics and almost everything to do with social environment?
|
> it is proven without any counter evidence...from so many sources that there is IQ difference in races
Are you able to share those sources?
Also, even if we take that argument as a given, what does it actually prove?
|
1d1bb4t
|
CMV: The IQ difference between races explains the wealth inequality in US
|
I posting a racial discriminatory (the correct kind) when I point out the outwardly violent nature and statistics of Black Americans, a while back. And of course it was met with an expectable Reddit response. I propose a new topic, following up. Of IQ differences in races (which would correlate with the violence stats ie: less iq, more violent).
It seems that it is proven without any counter evidence worth while from so many sources that there is IQ difference in races(just like any other physical differences which the brain is part of).
So if there is a IQ difference is races, wouldn’t be we expect to earning and life quality diff in the races, stratified by race?
So the globe is in perfect order. Low IQ people struggling(unfortunately seemingly brown) and high IQ people carrying on (mostly pale, but including Asians which makes it not white focused)
TLDR: poor people are poor because they have low IQ but they like to blame it on race.
Cue the “IQ is not real”
I know how to give deltas now so will be giving out quite liberally.
| 1,716,757,854
|
MahlerEnvy
|
l5sqyta
|
l5sqmh7
| 19
| 10
|
cmv: Women should be squished
On average women have between 20 to 30% body fat where as men have between 10 to 20%.
Women's skin is also softer, smoother and has less body hair. Testosterone makes male skin tougher.
Ask the women in your life if they like to be squished, and most of they will inevitably say yes. Women like to entrap their friends and partners with their arms to prevent them from escaping then squish them. In the world of women, this squishing behavior is known as a "hug"
For the reasons above women are soft, squishy and should be squished.
|
All of your factors show that women have the *ability* to be squished, but not that they *should* be squished.
Your third paragraph show anecdotal evidence that some women enjoy being squished by friends, family, and partners, but not that they would like to be squished by just anyone.
In fact, randomly squishing women you don’t know constitutes a physical assault, which is very very illegal.
Therefore following the logic of “women should be squished” and squishing any woman you see will most likely land you some charges or arrests. Which is very much not a good thing.
All this is to say, you should change your view to “Women should be asked if they would like to be squished”.
|
That’s a very low bar. I’m sure there’s a woman you could walk up and ask “Can I mash your potatoes” and they’d be down to clown, but I wouldn’t recommend it
|
1d1ccmn
|
cmv: Women should be squished
|
On average women have between 20 to 30% body fat where as men have between 10 to 20%.
Women's skin is also softer, smoother and has less body hair. Testosterone makes male skin tougher.
Ask the women in your life if they like to be squished, and most of they will inevitably say yes. Women like to entrap their friends and partners with their arms to prevent them from escaping then squish them. In the world of women, this squishing behavior is known as a "hug"
For the reasons above women are soft, squishy and should be squished.
| 1,716,760,833
|
NotEverHere
|
l5szeu6
|
l5sxxdl
| 45
| 8
|
CMV: I don’t think it’s “bad” to engage in white flight
By bad, I mean I don’t think it’s a negative thing. I don’t think someone should be looked at in a negative manner (as a racist and or an elitist).
The negative connotations certainly comes from a a different time.
However, I believe engaging in white flight can be done by a person of any ethnicity now. I still believe the person is not wrong for doing so.
A house is one of the largest investments the average American makes in their lifetime. Making changes in order to protect their investment is not a bad thing. Along with that, if they believe the quality of their immediate area may degrade or their perceived safety deteriorates, that’s not a bad reason to leave.
Maybe there is a different term for this behavior now and I’m not aware?
|
I know this is just semantics but I'd argue white flight is bad.
If you're leaving because there's more ethnicities then that's a problem. For example, a bunch of Indians moving into your community does cause some people to leave even though Indians don't commit crimes and are generally financially better than their white peers.
I've seen that happen and it is entirely due to race.
What you're talking about isn't white flight, but rather socioeconomic migration. If an area seems to be getting worse for whatever reason or there is a better area, people with the means to leave will do so.
It could be something like a community deciding to fund a really good public school using local taxes- thus bringing a lot of families over- making the school competitive- bringing more families over who raise property prices- thus higher end businesses.
These people had to come from somewhere. Maybe their local school went down in quality or a few places closed down.
People with wealth leaving their community with always bring property values down and businesses will change. I've seen great places with bustling local communities turn into absolute drug dens over time. It's not a white flight issue. It's that people with money will leave because they can, but poor people can't leave since moving costs money.
If the above makes sense to you, then that's not white flight. White flight is specifically people leaving because they don't like non whites moving in- which does actually happen.
I feel like it's important to distinguish the two for debate reasons.
|
White flight has everything to do with race. It's literally (in simple terms) white people moving out of communities that people of color were able to move to, and taking money and resources with them, leading to the deterioration of those communitites.
|
1d1gee4
|
CMV: I don’t think it’s “bad” to engage in white flight
|
By bad, I mean I don’t think it’s a negative thing. I don’t think someone should be looked at in a negative manner (as a racist and or an elitist).
The negative connotations certainly comes from a a different time.
However, I believe engaging in white flight can be done by a person of any ethnicity now. I still believe the person is not wrong for doing so.
A house is one of the largest investments the average American makes in their lifetime. Making changes in order to protect their investment is not a bad thing. Along with that, if they believe the quality of their immediate area may degrade or their perceived safety deteriorates, that’s not a bad reason to leave.
Maybe there is a different term for this behavior now and I’m not aware?
| 1,716,773,539
|
Eli-Had-A-Book-
|
l5twhcu
|
l5tw7rc
| 2
| -3
|
CMV: Smart people are mostly arrogant
I think their being right all the time gives them a sense of entitlement and disregard for other people's thoughts. I've also seen smart people being very sore losers, they know they've lost but try to manipulate and gaslight their opponent into believing something totally untrue about their argument which entangles the opponent's mind and makes them give in or quit. They also resort to strategies like infantilization among other things like talking over you and cutting you off, that makes them even more arrogant imo.
What do you think?
|
I don't really see how you can be certain of that without falling into a huge sampling bias:
First and foremost, you'll remember way more interactions with people that were strongly unpleasant than the normal ones. So if (for example) 1 our of 4 intelligent people were arrogant, discussing with the arrogant one would be imprinted in your mind way more than the 3 other discussions, and give you a wrong impression of the arrogant/normal ratio.
Secondly, people tend to mix with peers. Working in software engineering, I've been lucky to work with plenty of super smart people (at least, if you use IQ as a metric for intelligence, plenty of them would raise above the 2σ bar, i.e. "gifted"). What I observed is that the profile of people I interacted with depended a lot on the place I was. In banking / defense, there was a pretty high level of internal competition and "who's the alpha" vibe, leading to a pretty high proportion of arrogant people. On the opposite, when I went to AI R&D-centric company, that made a deliberate effort to promote a "no asshole genius" policy, I ended up working with a lot of people way smarter than me, but also chill and super friendly.
So if I only took part of my experiences as a sample, I could say either "smart people are super arrogant in general", or "smart people are super friendly", but in fact, smart people, like other people, shape and are shaped by their environment. If your environment promote competition and "*become a superior human*" mindset, then arrogance will concentrate there. If your environment promote cooperation and "*everyone can be great with appropriate training*" mindset, then it won't.
|
You are just describing what arrogant people do. There is nothing about it that is specific to, or causally related to, being smart, and your statement is such a sweeping generalisation that it's very difficult to engage with properly.
Yes, some arrogant, entitled assholes are smart. Some smart people are arrogant, entitled assholes. But...
Many studies, starting with the famous Dunning-Kruger analysis, have shown that unintelligent people tend to overestimate their abilities, while intelligent people tend to overestimate other people's abilities and underestimate their own. On the whole, it is stupid people who are more likely to be (unjustifiably) smug, arrogant and confident in their opinions rather than highly intelligent people.
Genuinely smart people (as opposed to self-satisfied jerks who just think they are smart) expose themselves to things that are intellectually challenging and don't feel as though they are 'right all the time.'
I would also argue that anyone who knows they are wrong / have lost and reacts to this by trying to "gaslight" others into accepting their erroneous view - instead of rationally internalising their error and using their intellect to do better - is by definition not especially smart.
|
1d1n388
|
CMV: Smart people are mostly arrogant
|
I think their being right all the time gives them a sense of entitlement and disregard for other people's thoughts. I've also seen smart people being very sore losers, they know they've lost but try to manipulate and gaslight their opponent into believing something totally untrue about their argument which entangles the opponent's mind and makes them give in or quit. They also resort to strategies like infantilization among other things like talking over you and cutting you off, that makes them even more arrogant imo.
What do you think?
| 1,716,799,615
|
Thinkiatrist
|
l5v1tn6
|
l5uypnc
| 22
| 2
|
CMV: If you believe that the 2020 election was 'stolen', then you must concede that voting for Trump in 2024 is a waste of time/lost cause.
Election season is coming up, and my mostly conservative family who can't stop whining about how the 2020 election was stolen are ramping up their "you need to vote for Trump," rhetoric. However, this doesn't make sense.
If you truly believe that the 2020 election was compromised by the deep state/George Soros/the Democrats/whoever Alex Jones is blaming this week, in favor of Biden, then it doesn't make sense to even bother voting for Trump.
Typically when I hear this argument, it follows that there are some sort of vague background characters acting under the eyes of the American public, pulling strings to subvert Trump. Why wouldn't this then occur again in 2024? If you truly believe that, then by the logic of your own worldview, Biden is guaranteed to win again, and you're wasting your time by even walking to the ballots on Election Day.
I think the only way you could convince me otherwise, is by demonstrating that something about the election process has changed fundamentally for this upcoming election, that essentially limits/disables the unseen actors from performing the rigging again. However, I don't think you could reasonably even scrape that point together, because if anything, the circumstances would only be more against Trump for this upcoming election. In the last election, Trump was at the very least in charge of the Executive Branch. Now Biden and Kamala are in charge, meaning that the 'deep state democrats washington elite cabal' or whatever, have EVEN MORE of an upper hand in playing around with the votes.
If Trump, while president, had the election unfairly taken away from him in 2020, because the elites rigged the election against him, then it stands to reason that the now only stronger elites would do this again, meaning there's literally no reason for anyone to go cast a vote for him.
|
I mean...I'm not in the stolen election camp at all, but it seems fairly obvious that *in theory* the "theft" in 2020 would be the result of influence and malfeasance that nevertheless had limits; if Trump had won in a landslide and "they" had just said no, the plot would've failed. That is, they could only sway so much and a sufficient proportion of votes in favor of Trump would have been insurmountable. Growing his victory margin would make a similar outcome less likely in 2024 and that would be a perfectly reasonable motivation for voting for him.
And honestly, telling Trump fans "you shouldn't vote because you're essentially correct and your vote doesn't count" seems like a really bad idea. If they actually believe you
>I'm mostly doing this in preparation of potential counterpoints I might get from these people.
Are you saying you don't actually want your view changed?
>But, it's really gotten bad in the past few years and I'm at the point where I need to put my foot down.
You almost certainly don't need to do that. Or if you do, just say you don't want to talk about politics.
|
Democrats in 2000 believed the election was stolen (hanging chads!). They voted in 2004. They believed that the election in 2004 was stolen (chicanery in Ohio!). They voted in 2008. They believed the election in 2016 was stolen (what electoral college, she got more votes!). They voted in 2020. So given that, and given that Democrats won 2 of the 3 elections after the ones they said were stolen, I'd say the lesson is that you should vote in the election after the one you think was stolen.
For the record, I don't think ANY of these elections were stolen.
|
1d1pqxa
|
CMV: If you believe that the 2020 election was 'stolen', then you must concede that voting for Trump in 2024 is a waste of time/lost cause.
|
Election season is coming up, and my mostly conservative family who can't stop whining about how the 2020 election was stolen are ramping up their "you need to vote for Trump," rhetoric. However, this doesn't make sense.
If you truly believe that the 2020 election was compromised by the deep state/George Soros/the Democrats/whoever Alex Jones is blaming this week, in favor of Biden, then it doesn't make sense to even bother voting for Trump.
Typically when I hear this argument, it follows that there are some sort of vague background characters acting under the eyes of the American public, pulling strings to subvert Trump. Why wouldn't this then occur again in 2024? If you truly believe that, then by the logic of your own worldview, Biden is guaranteed to win again, and you're wasting your time by even walking to the ballots on Election Day.
I think the only way you could convince me otherwise, is by demonstrating that something about the election process has changed fundamentally for this upcoming election, that essentially limits/disables the unseen actors from performing the rigging again. However, I don't think you could reasonably even scrape that point together, because if anything, the circumstances would only be more against Trump for this upcoming election. In the last election, Trump was at the very least in charge of the Executive Branch. Now Biden and Kamala are in charge, meaning that the 'deep state democrats washington elite cabal' or whatever, have EVEN MORE of an upper hand in playing around with the votes.
If Trump, while president, had the election unfairly taken away from him in 2020, because the elites rigged the election against him, then it stands to reason that the now only stronger elites would do this again, meaning there's literally no reason for anyone to go cast a vote for him.
| 1,716,810,761
|
dirtyjersey1999
|
l5vf9pi
|
l5veu7s
| 40
| 0
|
cmv: corporate income tax is pointless
I’ve never understood how corporate income tax isn’t just a hidden sales tax. All of the net profits subject to the tax would have to come from business revenue aka sales. The “cost” of that tax is baked into the price of whatever transaction generated the revenue.
Taxing corporate income instead of implementing a federal sales tax just seems like it gives corporate accountants and lawyers a shot at trying to hold on to as much of that taxable cash as possible via the seemingly endless tax loopholes that exist in the corporate tax code. If it was a sales tax instead, it just goes straight to the federal government, corporations have no reason to care about avoiding it.
I’ve heard the argument that sales taxes are regressive, but that seems easily solved by carving out exceptions for essentials like food and diapers (most states with sales tax already do this), or just bumping up the standard deduction to offset the impact on lower income families.
Finally, many of the arguments for raising corporate taxes seem driven more by emotion than anything; people mostly seem to want to “punish” the evil corporations for their (often correctly) perceived shitty behavior by raising their taxes. How is that not ultimately just hurting ourselves when those proposed tax increases are reflected in higher prices?
|
Imagine a US-based manufacturer of widgets that sells one thousand widgets to a Canadian buyer. Sales taxes are based on the location of the buyer when they make the purchase. Because the buyer is located in Canada any sales taxes that will be collected will be Canadian sales taxes and they'll be remitted to the Canadian government. Under the current system where corporate income tax exists, the US government is still able to tax the profits that accrue to the US-based company from that sale. If the only tool the IRS had for taxing corporations were sales taxes, since the sale didn't take place within the US there would be no sales taxes to collect.
|
Eh, unprofitable companies can still often pay corporate taxes, due to differences in how profit and taxable income are calculated
|
1d1tic0
|
cmv: corporate income tax is pointless
|
I’ve never understood how corporate income tax isn’t just a hidden sales tax. All of the net profits subject to the tax would have to come from business revenue aka sales. The “cost” of that tax is baked into the price of whatever transaction generated the revenue.
Taxing corporate income instead of implementing a federal sales tax just seems like it gives corporate accountants and lawyers a shot at trying to hold on to as much of that taxable cash as possible via the seemingly endless tax loopholes that exist in the corporate tax code. If it was a sales tax instead, it just goes straight to the federal government, corporations have no reason to care about avoiding it.
I’ve heard the argument that sales taxes are regressive, but that seems easily solved by carving out exceptions for essentials like food and diapers (most states with sales tax already do this), or just bumping up the standard deduction to offset the impact on lower income families.
Finally, many of the arguments for raising corporate taxes seem driven more by emotion than anything; people mostly seem to want to “punish” the evil corporations for their (often correctly) perceived shitty behavior by raising their taxes. How is that not ultimately just hurting ourselves when those proposed tax increases are reflected in higher prices?
| 1,716,822,039
|
Remydon
|
l5w3p4o
|
l5w3l4n
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: If Israel wishes to establish international credibility, it should get third parties to investigate the major incidents that took place in Gaza.
Yesterday it was reported that an airstrike in Rafah has resulted in at least 45 deaths, many of which women and children. There are even pictures of charred and decapitated babies coming out. All the videos we saw are horrific. Bibi has already called it a ["tragic mistake"](https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/netanyahu-acknowledges-tragic-mistake-after-rafah-strike-kills-dozens-of-palestinians/) and the IDF will investigate the incident.
This is not the first time the IDF has had a high-profile incident that warrants investigation. Others include the killing of 7 WCK aid workers, the killing of the 3 Israeli hostages, and the Flour Massacre that killed more than 100 Palestinians. In the case of the 7 WCK aid workers, the investigation was reportedly ["hurried completed"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/05/israeli-inquiry-blames-wck-aid-killings-on-grave-errors-by-military-personnel) and was unlikely to be [transparent and honest](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/02/israeli-strike-on-jose-andres-aid-group-prompts-new-level-of-us-backlash-00150245). The killing of the 3 Israeli hostages did not result in anyone reprimanded or dismissed despite a clear violation of rule of engagement that heavily tanked IDF's reputation. On the Flour Massacre, Israel's version of event has been [doubted](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/09/middleeast/gaza-food-aid-convoy-deaths-eyewitness-intl-investigation-cmd/index.html) by CNN too.
Suffice to say, it's unlikely that the IDF will investigate yesterday's incident or any other incident in a transparent, honest manner with proper accountability to those responsible. Without doing so, Israel's international credibility is rightfully tarnished and gives other institutions like the ICC ground to investigate Israeli officials. (Note that the ICC only investigate individuals when their home country's justice system is incapable of punishing war criminals.) It should get third parties that involve an international team of experts to investigate these incidents to clear its name or to hold those responsible accountable. It's what a democratic nation _should_ do.
|
A lot of European countries are on the fence when it comes to their support for Israel. They generally oppose the Bibi government, especially its actions in the West Bank, but they also support Israel's right to self-defence. However, as time goes on their support is dwindling and I think it's important for Israel to salvage this, and this can be done by proving to everyone that they are complying international law, instead of depending on institutions that they don't trust to accuse them of war crimes.
|
The strain that Israel is putting on its allies is that the strategy itself from the highest levels amounts to a sweeping destruction of Gaza in which tens of thousands of civilians are being killed and is becoming unlivable for hundreds of thousands more. Some high profile incidents are help to fan the backlash but the protests and political pressure aren't living or dying based on the conclusion concerning a handful of attacks that killed \~200 people in total.
|
1d1y22j
|
CMV: If Israel wishes to establish international credibility, it should get third parties to investigate the major incidents that took place in Gaza.
|
Yesterday it was reported that an airstrike in Rafah has resulted in at least 45 deaths, many of which women and children. There are even pictures of charred and decapitated babies coming out. All the videos we saw are horrific. Bibi has already called it a ["tragic mistake"](https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/netanyahu-acknowledges-tragic-mistake-after-rafah-strike-kills-dozens-of-palestinians/) and the IDF will investigate the incident.
This is not the first time the IDF has had a high-profile incident that warrants investigation. Others include the killing of 7 WCK aid workers, the killing of the 3 Israeli hostages, and the Flour Massacre that killed more than 100 Palestinians. In the case of the 7 WCK aid workers, the investigation was reportedly ["hurried completed"](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/05/israeli-inquiry-blames-wck-aid-killings-on-grave-errors-by-military-personnel) and was unlikely to be [transparent and honest](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/02/israeli-strike-on-jose-andres-aid-group-prompts-new-level-of-us-backlash-00150245). The killing of the 3 Israeli hostages did not result in anyone reprimanded or dismissed despite a clear violation of rule of engagement that heavily tanked IDF's reputation. On the Flour Massacre, Israel's version of event has been [doubted](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/09/middleeast/gaza-food-aid-convoy-deaths-eyewitness-intl-investigation-cmd/index.html) by CNN too.
Suffice to say, it's unlikely that the IDF will investigate yesterday's incident or any other incident in a transparent, honest manner with proper accountability to those responsible. Without doing so, Israel's international credibility is rightfully tarnished and gives other institutions like the ICC ground to investigate Israeli officials. (Note that the ICC only investigate individuals when their home country's justice system is incapable of punishing war criminals.) It should get third parties that involve an international team of experts to investigate these incidents to clear its name or to hold those responsible accountable. It's what a democratic nation _should_ do.
| 1,716,833,779
|
WheatBerryPie
|
l5x9xtv
|
l5x5bp5
| 8
| -1
|
CMV: Cloning is perfectly ethical and we should allow research in cloning as a way for LGBTQ+ couples and people with infertility issues to have children
Like the title said i think it would be **just as ethical as biological childbirth** to allow for willing individuals to clone themselves and raise that clone as their children.
Think about it, cloning would be much better than adoption or using sperm/egg donors, since the child would actually have your genes instead of strangers'.
It would also partly serve to reduce the underpopulation issues many nations now face, by allowing people who can't produce children biologically to contribute to the population count.
|
>It would also partly serve to reduce the underpopulation issues many nations now face, by allowing people who can't produce children biologically to contribute to the population count.
Honestly I doubt it. The number of people who want biological kids but can't get ivf is extremely small. So it's not like getting them to have kids will cause a big swing.
Also normalising clone has ethical ramifications on gene pool diversity / incest prevention. Like let's say you're a tenth generation clone (i.e. the original person you were cloned from was you're great great great great great great great grandfather). You'd have to keep track of over 200 years of family history to avoid having sex with any relatives.
|
You can't have an ethical position that ignores society and psychology when you are talking about babies and children. Ignoring the motivations of people regarding having a child is not an ethical position at all.
Or to make it an ethical position you have to actually address in practical ways the many ethical traps that choosing the precise DNA of your child would present. Hubris is a completely obvious one. But how about the problem of cloning someone else as a designer baby? There are so many fairly obvious pitfalls where this would succumb to the flaws in human nature that I actually understand and respect the pretty much universal ban on this at present. Nobody has an answer to how to address these issues - do you?
|
1d1ysnp
|
CMV: Cloning is perfectly ethical and we should allow research in cloning as a way for LGBTQ+ couples and people with infertility issues to have children
|
Like the title said i think it would be **just as ethical as biological childbirth** to allow for willing individuals to clone themselves and raise that clone as their children.
Think about it, cloning would be much better than adoption or using sperm/egg donors, since the child would actually have your genes instead of strangers'.
It would also partly serve to reduce the underpopulation issues many nations now face, by allowing people who can't produce children biologically to contribute to the population count.
| 1,716,835,684
|
Lancer_lot_X
|
l5xbbka
|
l5xah78
| 8
| 3
|
CMV: The complexity of who started the fighting between Jews and Palestinians isn’t so complex at all.
Like many others, I think it matters how this whole thing got started because it’s a big part of what led us to each next step until we get to now. Im not going to say the Arabs started it in the 7th century, I’m interested in the modern history. Of course the ancient history plays into it, especially with regard to Jerusalem, and that will be a part of my viewpoint here. This will not be a comprehensive history. What I’m looking for and will ask again at the end, is some large-ish organized violence, from either side but I posit that the Palestinians started things, from before 1929.
So Jews had a rough go of it to put it lightly across, especially, the latter half of the 19th century. That was brought to a tipping point in Kishinev in 1905. As a reaction to that pogrom, the Jews (or Herzl, publicly) decided they needed a place to call home.
Skipping other parts of the story, the Jews buy up a shit ton of land in the mandate of Palestine, territory that Britain conquered from the Turks in WWI. Britain used Arabs to win the territory (see: Lawrence of Arabia) but the Arabs did not do it alone and likely wouldn’t have been able to.
Britain sets apart 77% of the original mandate, the side East of ‘The River’ and gives it to the Arabs in 1921. It is called Transjordan then and is now called the Kingdom of Jordan. The other side of The River, all the way to The Sea, remains British territory for another 27 years. During this time is when the Jews start buying up tons of land there. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the defacto leader of Palestine, really doesn’t like this even though he and his family profited from the sale of land to the Jews.
Jews have, for at least all of the 400 years of Ottoman rule, been able to come and pray (or weep) at the Western Wall, broadly considered to be a remnant of the 2nd temple complex that was built by the Jews, Egyptians, and Persians in the 6th century BCE, and was destroyed by the Romans (who then named the Kingdom’s of Judah and Israel Palestine after the Jews enemy, the Philistines). So, as they have essentially always done, the Jews are going to the wall to weep and pray, in numbers greater than pilgrimage would have allowed for in the past. They see their elders struggling to stay standing after arriving to the wall and want to put some chairs in the street so the elders can sit.
But Haj Amin says this will basically turn the street into an outdoor synagogue, and plots to prevent this from being approved. Pamphlets were spread, largely amongst the rural population of Arabs who would be easier to convince of the lies, that say the Jews are trying to take over the Temple Mount, where the Arabs have built a Mosque over the ground where the Jews had their ancient Temples (Why? Because Mohammed is supposed to have flew up to heaven from exactly that point on a mythical creature). Many Arabs freak out and go berserk across the territory murdering Jews in their homes, raping people, cutting women’s breasts off for trophies, killing innocent children in hand to hand, face to face violence, and are so fucked in the head that many Arabs stand up to them in defense of their Jewish neighbors, or hide them in their homes. 133 Jews are killed and 339 are injured across the territory over a week long stretch of riots (116 Arabs are also killed, but in defense of the Jews, mostly by British forces and the occasional Jew), highlighted by the violence in Hebron.
After investigations, Haj Amin was found to be the orchestrator of the effort to mobilize Arabs in a violent attack on the Jewish communities across Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
This all isn’t to say that Jews are justified to do whatever they want since they didn’t start it. It’s just to gain clarity on who started the violence. There is a lot else to say, like Haj Amin rejecting the 1939 White Paper that would have prevented most future Jewish immigration, or the rejection of the original partition plan, or the fact that Palestinians or Arabs started all the future wars with the exception of the time Egypt amassed a bunch of forces and Israel jumped the line to surprise attack/defend early in ‘67.
My request here is to focus on anything (sounds weird, but preferably organized violence) that happened that you think is relavent prior to August, 1929. I know there are incidents of murder prior to this point, but ultimately those could go either way in terms of fault and don’t constitute enough collective energy to even say ‘Arabs’ or ‘Jews’ (acknowledging, as I have, that even the riots of ‘29 don’t make up all Arabs, or also that not all Jews support the ongoing war, or the invasion of Rafah. It’s still definitely organized violence).
I have an open mind and am open for discussing the finer points or the broader points, and of course, have a humanitarian sway towards the side defending itself the last century or so.
Thanks for participating, especially if you are pro Palestinian.
|
I will point you to the existence of Jewish paramilitary forces and their abuses before 1929. Bar-Giora and Hashomer. In the name of "defense" they raided neighboring Arab villages and employed assassination. Bar-Giora's slogan was **In fire and blood did Judea fall; in blood and fire Judea shall rise.**
The violence didn't start in 1929. Look at how happy Americans are with immigration right now. Imagine you are a Palestinian Arab in the mandate and you are watching immigrants literally take your land. Now imagine that you have no agency in this situation because the immigration policies are controlled by a colonial empire. Then in the name of defending settlements from banditry the neighbors "protection squads" come around and raid your village because they say an Arab villager there hurt a Jew in some way.
This is enough to cause a people to riot. Your attempt to trace back the violence cannot end in 1929. That's like trying to find the source of the Nile and stopping at the Egyptian border.
|
> Like many others, I think it matters how this whole thing got started because it’s a big part of what led us to each next step until we get to now. Im not going to say the Arabs started it in the 7th century, I’m interested in the modern history
If its so important to understand who "started it" in History why are you dismissing literally all of history except from the 1900's on? Ancient history would still be relevant as that would determine "who started it". Why drag and arbitatlry line?
Also, how is the event you cite the start of the conflict? Irs literally almost a 100 years ago, what relevance does that have now to the decisions being made?
> Britain used Arabs to win the territory (see: Lawrence of Arabia)
Why are you citing films here? Wouldn't an actual history book be better?
|
1d22gf5
|
CMV: The complexity of who started the fighting between Jews and Palestinians isn’t so complex at all.
|
Like many others, I think it matters how this whole thing got started because it’s a big part of what led us to each next step until we get to now. Im not going to say the Arabs started it in the 7th century, I’m interested in the modern history. Of course the ancient history plays into it, especially with regard to Jerusalem, and that will be a part of my viewpoint here. This will not be a comprehensive history. What I’m looking for and will ask again at the end, is some large-ish organized violence, from either side but I posit that the Palestinians started things, from before 1929.
So Jews had a rough go of it to put it lightly across, especially, the latter half of the 19th century. That was brought to a tipping point in Kishinev in 1905. As a reaction to that pogrom, the Jews (or Herzl, publicly) decided they needed a place to call home.
Skipping other parts of the story, the Jews buy up a shit ton of land in the mandate of Palestine, territory that Britain conquered from the Turks in WWI. Britain used Arabs to win the territory (see: Lawrence of Arabia) but the Arabs did not do it alone and likely wouldn’t have been able to.
Britain sets apart 77% of the original mandate, the side East of ‘The River’ and gives it to the Arabs in 1921. It is called Transjordan then and is now called the Kingdom of Jordan. The other side of The River, all the way to The Sea, remains British territory for another 27 years. During this time is when the Jews start buying up tons of land there. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the defacto leader of Palestine, really doesn’t like this even though he and his family profited from the sale of land to the Jews.
Jews have, for at least all of the 400 years of Ottoman rule, been able to come and pray (or weep) at the Western Wall, broadly considered to be a remnant of the 2nd temple complex that was built by the Jews, Egyptians, and Persians in the 6th century BCE, and was destroyed by the Romans (who then named the Kingdom’s of Judah and Israel Palestine after the Jews enemy, the Philistines). So, as they have essentially always done, the Jews are going to the wall to weep and pray, in numbers greater than pilgrimage would have allowed for in the past. They see their elders struggling to stay standing after arriving to the wall and want to put some chairs in the street so the elders can sit.
But Haj Amin says this will basically turn the street into an outdoor synagogue, and plots to prevent this from being approved. Pamphlets were spread, largely amongst the rural population of Arabs who would be easier to convince of the lies, that say the Jews are trying to take over the Temple Mount, where the Arabs have built a Mosque over the ground where the Jews had their ancient Temples (Why? Because Mohammed is supposed to have flew up to heaven from exactly that point on a mythical creature). Many Arabs freak out and go berserk across the territory murdering Jews in their homes, raping people, cutting women’s breasts off for trophies, killing innocent children in hand to hand, face to face violence, and are so fucked in the head that many Arabs stand up to them in defense of their Jewish neighbors, or hide them in their homes. 133 Jews are killed and 339 are injured across the territory over a week long stretch of riots (116 Arabs are also killed, but in defense of the Jews, mostly by British forces and the occasional Jew), highlighted by the violence in Hebron.
After investigations, Haj Amin was found to be the orchestrator of the effort to mobilize Arabs in a violent attack on the Jewish communities across Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
This all isn’t to say that Jews are justified to do whatever they want since they didn’t start it. It’s just to gain clarity on who started the violence. There is a lot else to say, like Haj Amin rejecting the 1939 White Paper that would have prevented most future Jewish immigration, or the rejection of the original partition plan, or the fact that Palestinians or Arabs started all the future wars with the exception of the time Egypt amassed a bunch of forces and Israel jumped the line to surprise attack/defend early in ‘67.
My request here is to focus on anything (sounds weird, but preferably organized violence) that happened that you think is relavent prior to August, 1929. I know there are incidents of murder prior to this point, but ultimately those could go either way in terms of fault and don’t constitute enough collective energy to even say ‘Arabs’ or ‘Jews’ (acknowledging, as I have, that even the riots of ‘29 don’t make up all Arabs, or also that not all Jews support the ongoing war, or the invasion of Rafah. It’s still definitely organized violence).
I have an open mind and am open for discussing the finer points or the broader points, and of course, have a humanitarian sway towards the side defending itself the last century or so.
Thanks for participating, especially if you are pro Palestinian.
| 1,716,844,329
|
Irish8ryan
|
l5xujjq
|
l5xu9kz
| 31
| 0
|
CMV: States looking for more tax revenue should legalize all the "Awesome Shit" but only within a short distance of it's borders
Here's the idea. You create a bill, let's call it the "Legalize Awesome Shit To Siphon Tax Dollars From Bordering States." The bill legalizes so-called awesome shit, such as prostitution, fireworks, gambling, weed, etc. But it *only* legalizes it within, say, ~30 miles of the state's borders.
The effect would be mass amounts of nearby states' citizens coming in and out to partake in the "Awesome Shit," a massive boost in tax revenue, but without the ugly downsides of actually allowing the "Awesome Shit" in 99.9% of the state.
Most citizens of the state would likely not have a problem voting for something like this, because it wouldn't affect the area they live, but it would supply their area with loads of tax money to be spent on things they want.
|
There’s historical context. Massachusetts had restrictive blue laws forbidding alcohol sales on Sundays. New Hampshire, being a neighbor and the “live free or die” state, had no such restriction. It used to be legal to sell alcohol within 10 miles of the New Hampshire border in Massachusetts, but at some point that stopped. My guess is such a law doesn’t work because the whole state clamors for the right to sell “awesome shit” so the law doesn’t last long. But it might be worth investigating if you’re interested what happened.
|
...and you don't think that the people living close to the border would protest? And perhaps the states surrounding said state?
Plus, I don't believe it is even constitutionally possible to legalize things only within a certain area without significant problems - you're essentially discriminating against people based on their place of living, after all...
|
1d23lsb
|
CMV: States looking for more tax revenue should legalize all the "Awesome Shit" but only within a short distance of it's borders
|
Here's the idea. You create a bill, let's call it the "Legalize Awesome Shit To Siphon Tax Dollars From Bordering States." The bill legalizes so-called awesome shit, such as prostitution, fireworks, gambling, weed, etc. But it *only* legalizes it within, say, ~30 miles of the state's borders.
The effect would be mass amounts of nearby states' citizens coming in and out to partake in the "Awesome Shit," a massive boost in tax revenue, but without the ugly downsides of actually allowing the "Awesome Shit" in 99.9% of the state.
Most citizens of the state would likely not have a problem voting for something like this, because it wouldn't affect the area they live, but it would supply their area with loads of tax money to be spent on things they want.
| 1,716,847,366
|
MicroneedlingAlone2
|
l5y0elg
|
l5xyjpf
| 45
| 13
|
CMV: It is perfectly fine for people to use the term "Wendigo" in any context.
It seems often that people have some sort of issue with media, or individuals, referring to, or featuring in the work, a "Wendigo." An example I can think of is people being offended about it's usage in works like "Until Dawn" or different source books for say DnD, etc.
The only reason I have ever seen given for why this is an issue is because the Wendigo is part of Native American folklore from the Algonquian tribe, and as per the folklore it is considered taboo to refer to the Wendigo or depict it as doing so risks attracting it's attention.
In my view this is a completely ridiculous reason for not referring to the Wendigo in any way whatsoever. I say so for the following reasons:
1. There is absolutely no reason for those who are disbelievers in the myth to have to follow it's rules. If you don't believe in the Wendigo or it's associated folklore there is literally no reason to follow the rule, just because other people believe in it does not mean you have to follow said rule. For example I am a Buddhist; just because I am a Buddhist that does not mean you can't gamble, play dice games, use the terms Buddha/Bodhisattva improperly, believe in a God, reference the Buddha outside a religious context, etc. My believes don't impede what you can do.
2. No other creatures are given the same treatment; the prohibition against mentioning them is also present for the Leprechaun, Banshee, most fae, Changelings, etc. Yet there is never outrage over their mentioning or inclusion in media, it's exclusively the Wendigo that gets people annoyed for some reason.
3. If you are a believer in the Wendigo folktales then you can simply ignore and not engage with media including them. This is the same way with basically everything; I personally find it distasteful when Changelings are used as child snatches in media due to the theorized origin of the myth, as such I just don't engage with those stories. Not demand wholesale they don't exist.
|
In any context? I think going up to a member of the Algonquian tribe and repeatedly shouting Wendigo because you know it pisses him off would be rude.
But more to the point, like, why? What is the actual advantage to doing this? Why do you want to talk about some mythological creature so bad?
|
I mean, if we're accepting the existence of the Wendigo, I would argue it is imporper to use the term Wendigo when referring to the Sasquatch.
|
1d23pif
|
CMV: It is perfectly fine for people to use the term "Wendigo" in any context.
|
It seems often that people have some sort of issue with media, or individuals, referring to, or featuring in the work, a "Wendigo." An example I can think of is people being offended about it's usage in works like "Until Dawn" or different source books for say DnD, etc.
The only reason I have ever seen given for why this is an issue is because the Wendigo is part of Native American folklore from the Algonquian tribe, and as per the folklore it is considered taboo to refer to the Wendigo or depict it as doing so risks attracting it's attention.
In my view this is a completely ridiculous reason for not referring to the Wendigo in any way whatsoever. I say so for the following reasons:
1. There is absolutely no reason for those who are disbelievers in the myth to have to follow it's rules. If you don't believe in the Wendigo or it's associated folklore there is literally no reason to follow the rule, just because other people believe in it does not mean you have to follow said rule. For example I am a Buddhist; just because I am a Buddhist that does not mean you can't gamble, play dice games, use the terms Buddha/Bodhisattva improperly, believe in a God, reference the Buddha outside a religious context, etc. My believes don't impede what you can do.
2. No other creatures are given the same treatment; the prohibition against mentioning them is also present for the Leprechaun, Banshee, most fae, Changelings, etc. Yet there is never outrage over their mentioning or inclusion in media, it's exclusively the Wendigo that gets people annoyed for some reason.
3. If you are a believer in the Wendigo folktales then you can simply ignore and not engage with media including them. This is the same way with basically everything; I personally find it distasteful when Changelings are used as child snatches in media due to the theorized origin of the myth, as such I just don't engage with those stories. Not demand wholesale they don't exist.
| 1,716,847,646
|
The_Naked_Buddhist
|
l5y09z5
|
l5xyq7m
| 139
| 3
|
CMV: Recommending someone create or review their budget is solid financial advice and is often the first step to address most financial issues
Creating and managing a budget is often one of the first and most important steps in personal finance.
It does not solve every issue, but almost always improves the situation by clearly identifying the problem(s).
However, many times, whenever advice to create or review a budget comes up, it is often rejected or ridiculed, especially online.
I concede that budgets do not always help.
But they seldom hurt and tend to be the first and one of the most important steps to resolving most financial issues.
|
So, I want to point out one flaw in your claims.
You state that a budget is the one of the first and most important steps in personal finance. This, while generally good advice, is just not universal to every situation.
There are just many topics in 'personal finances' where issues crop up and budgeting just does not matter. Below are just a few.
- Tax optimization
- When to take social security vs withdraw retirement funds
- What 'balance' should you have in an investment portfolio
- Should you use a Roth or traditional IRA - or a 401k/403b
- How can you establish a trust for your children/grandchildren for college or the future
- Estate planning
- How to effectively use an HSA
None of these require a budget or even improves a situation. Once you move outside the 'I need more money' type issues, you find a lot of allocation issues.
To be blunt, if I am working on an estate plan to optimize the tax burden, preaching about a budget is not even remotely helpful and could be argued to be negative because it is taking attention away from the core issue.
Budgets help with the 'I need more money' type issues but typically aren't nearly as important for other common issues. Essentially, it is good for one class of issues.
|
So, assuming that someone who is in dire financial straits doesn't have a budget, or has a wrong budget, isn't going to do anything but antagonize them.
A fairly large amount of people who are in dire situation money-wise are people who often had to take debt they probably shouldn't have, just to deal with a shit situation out of their control, and are now clawing back out of the hole they *had* to dig, or resort to destroying their life further.
Not everything can be fixed by "well, if you had a budget". Pretending a budget is a miracle solution is a horrible way to look at it.
|
1d25bsy
|
CMV: Recommending someone create or review their budget is solid financial advice and is often the first step to address most financial issues
|
Creating and managing a budget is often one of the first and most important steps in personal finance.
It does not solve every issue, but almost always improves the situation by clearly identifying the problem(s).
However, many times, whenever advice to create or review a budget comes up, it is often rejected or ridiculed, especially online.
I concede that budgets do not always help.
But they seldom hurt and tend to be the first and one of the most important steps to resolving most financial issues.
| 1,716,852,206
|
laxnut90
|
l5yyjgk
|
l5ywt6a
| 7
| 6
|
CMV: Using bidets with toilet paper is MUCH better than using toilet paper alone.
Bidets used with toilet paper literally shit on toilet paper in almost every way I can think of.
I grew up in India all my life where we use bidets or health faucets set up beside the toilet to clean our behinds. Most office buildings, malls and private institutions have toilet paper (I'm going to refer toilet paper as TP moving forward for convenience) along with the attached bidets which can be used for drying before putting your pants back on. At home I used my bath towel for drying, although we did have access to TP as well. In more rural parts of the country, toilets would just have faucets installed because installing TP stands along with refilling the TP regularly is expensive. I would still argue that putting your pants on with a wet bottom is a hundred times better than wiping it with just TP leaving the area only partially cleaned.
I came to the US last year for my Masters and the norm here in restrooms is TP with only a small minority of restrooms providing bidets accompanied with TP.
If you eat food with your hands you end up washing them after, so why not do the same with your hole? If your feet get muddy after walking in the garage you end up washing them after, so why not do the same with your hole? If a bird poops on your hair you end up washing them, so why not do the same with your hole? You get the point. Washing with a jet spray would help get rid of all the poo and keep your hole clean, much better than what TP can ever achieve.
Here are some reasons why using TP alone *may* beat a bidet ergonomically:
1) If one typically eat more drier foods and engage in meat heavy diets, the poo tends to be drier and less sticky. One can argue that using TP here would have the same effect as a bidet. However, I would use a similar argument provided before: Imagine if there was dry poo on your arm or your leg. You wouldn't think twice and immediately wash yourselves.
2) In colder environments, washing with a jet spray that immediately spits out cold water into your hole may be uncomfortable and may even numb the area for a while. I would argue that heated water could be easily installed similar to how there is access to hot water while taking a shower.
If a country such as India can maintain bidets in most restrooms, both in public and private areas, developed countries like the US should hardly face any obstacles in setting up bidets at workplaces, institutions and private homes. Providing the option for warm water should be no biggie as well.
I would love for someone to change my view on this.
|
A lot of people simply can't handle the feeling of getting water sprayed on their ass. Maybe they might learn to appreciate it in time, but people just want to clean their ass in whatever way is comfortable to them. The more open minded among us might try it and bear with it until it becomes comfortable, but there are many that don't think that way.
You're right in the sense that it's cleaner overall, but just cleanliness alone doesn't do it. People want whatever is comfortable to them and in the end, that's the most important.
|
Whether you know it or not you are smearing it, TP is not picking up the fecal particles, so at a micro level yes you are in fact smearing "poo" along your butt. Thats not a huge deal but people shouldn't be thinking they're "clean", bidets also perfectly clean you but they do a much better job of softening up and rinsing, then you go over that with dry TP and that finishes the process. There are plenty of demos in why and how a Bidet cleans far better than just rubbing TP around down there.
|
1d25ckx
|
CMV: Using bidets with toilet paper is MUCH better than using toilet paper alone.
|
Bidets used with toilet paper literally shit on toilet paper in almost every way I can think of.
I grew up in India all my life where we use bidets or health faucets set up beside the toilet to clean our behinds. Most office buildings, malls and private institutions have toilet paper (I'm going to refer toilet paper as TP moving forward for convenience) along with the attached bidets which can be used for drying before putting your pants back on. At home I used my bath towel for drying, although we did have access to TP as well. In more rural parts of the country, toilets would just have faucets installed because installing TP stands along with refilling the TP regularly is expensive. I would still argue that putting your pants on with a wet bottom is a hundred times better than wiping it with just TP leaving the area only partially cleaned.
I came to the US last year for my Masters and the norm here in restrooms is TP with only a small minority of restrooms providing bidets accompanied with TP.
If you eat food with your hands you end up washing them after, so why not do the same with your hole? If your feet get muddy after walking in the garage you end up washing them after, so why not do the same with your hole? If a bird poops on your hair you end up washing them, so why not do the same with your hole? You get the point. Washing with a jet spray would help get rid of all the poo and keep your hole clean, much better than what TP can ever achieve.
Here are some reasons why using TP alone *may* beat a bidet ergonomically:
1) If one typically eat more drier foods and engage in meat heavy diets, the poo tends to be drier and less sticky. One can argue that using TP here would have the same effect as a bidet. However, I would use a similar argument provided before: Imagine if there was dry poo on your arm or your leg. You wouldn't think twice and immediately wash yourselves.
2) In colder environments, washing with a jet spray that immediately spits out cold water into your hole may be uncomfortable and may even numb the area for a while. I would argue that heated water could be easily installed similar to how there is access to hot water while taking a shower.
If a country such as India can maintain bidets in most restrooms, both in public and private areas, developed countries like the US should hardly face any obstacles in setting up bidets at workplaces, institutions and private homes. Providing the option for warm water should be no biggie as well.
I would love for someone to change my view on this.
| 1,716,852,269
|
Mundackal_Musashi
|
l6066te
|
l5z72f1
| 21
| 7
|
CMV: Bradley Martyn isn't really that wrong about his claims that he can beat a professional MMA fighter or a pro boxer in a street fight
Alright, hear me out, please. And listen to my arguments.
For someone who don't know who Bradley Martyn is, here's the information: https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Bradley_Martyn#:~:text=Bradley%20Martyn(born%3A%20May%2022%2C%201989(1989-05-22)%5Bage,Los%20Angeles%2C%20California%2C%20United%20States
First, I'm not a fan of Bradley Martyn at all. I don't like his arrogance and overconfidence, but it doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
Second, Bradley Martyn is 6'3” and ~260 lbs former amateur bodybuilder and fitness influencer, who can deadlift 700 lbs and who also does an all-around exercises in order to improve his legs, arms, torso and cardio. So no, he won't "gas out quickly" in a fight.
Third, Bradley is not actually unskilled. He has challenged wrestlers, boxers and other fighters to spar with him and learned basic principles of fighting and moves from them. He has done some wrestling, boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and kickboxing. Like Bradley himself said – "dude, I'm not a your typical gymbro, don't underestimate me". For a big athletic guy like him, even basic and simple moves from martial arts would be enough to apply it in a fight and dominate the opponent.
Fourth, Bradley is right about to not to underestimate him. It happens a lot when pro fighters fight debutants or athletes from a non-combat sport and it can cost them their victory. Because Bradley certainly has a puncher's chance or can use his weight and strength to press and overwhelm a smaller fighter by that, especially in a street fight situation.
Fifth, street fights are unpredictable and chaotic, so everything can happen there. Bradley has noted that a lot of times, warning the fighter about how dangerous a slam against the pavement or asphalt can be, especially from someone who can deadlift 700 lbs.
Sixth, fighting on the street and on the ring or octagon is not the same. Fighter's own muscle memory can be both their advantage and disadvantage at the same time, especially if dirty moves are used.
Seventh, weight classes exist for a reason. Yes, skills plays the role, but weight and size/strength is also important, and skills isn't always overcoming the strength and power. In a street fight situation, it can be even critical. Sure, if Bradley's opponent would be equal or similar to him in terms of height and weight, Bradley would likely lose. But if his opponent is smaller and shorter, it gives Bradley size, strength and reach advantage, which is also important in a fight.
Aright, I think that I said everything. I'm ready to listen for counter-arguments.
|
>First, I'm not a fan of Bradley Martyn at all. I don't like his arrogance and overconfidence, but it doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
True.
>Second, Bradley Martyn is 6'3” and ~260 lbs former amateur bodybuilder and fitness influencer, who can deadlift 700 lbs and who also does an all-around exercises in order to improve his legs, arms, torso and cardio. So no, he won't "gas out quickly" in a fight.
Gassing out in a fight is partly about cardio, but is also about how much effort it takes your body to move its weight around. Professional fighters have amazing cardio, but avoid building superfluous muscle in large part because they wish to avoid being weighed down by the extra mass. Infantrymen tend toward leanness for similar reasons.
>Third, Bradley is not actually unskilled. He has challenged wrestlers, boxers and other fighters to spar with him and learned basic principles of fighting and moves from them. He has done some wrestling, boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and kickboxing. Like Bradley himself said – "dude, I'm not a your typical gymbro, don't underestimate me". For a big athletic guy like him, even basic and simple moves from martial arts would be enough to apply it in a fight and dominate the opponent.
This is the most important point, because the better trained he is, the more his size advantage will matter, and the more likely he will win. However, if he is poorly trained or lacks durability, a sufficiently skilled fighter can overcome this disadvantage with technique, provided he is close enough in size.
>Fourth, Bradley is right about to not to underestimate him. It happens a lot when pro fighters fight debutants or athletes from a non-combat sport and it can cost them their victory. Because Bradley certainly has a puncher's chance or can use his weight and strength to press and overwhelm a smaller fighter by that, especially in a street fight situation.
True.
>Fifth, street fights are unpredictable and chaotic, so everything can happen there. Bradley has noted that a lot of times, warning the fighter about how dangerous a slam against the pavement or asphalt can be, especially from someone who can deadlift 700 lbs.
This is also true, but a street fight can also involve many factors that can neutralize a size advantage - the environment matters more in the street than it does in the ring.
>Sixth, fighting on the street and on the ring or octagon is not the same. Fighter's own muscle memory can be both their advantage and disadvantage at the same time, especially if dirty moves are used.
True…ish. Dirty moves aren’t all that different from clean ones, because there are only so many ways to efficiently move your body in a fight. Punching someone in the face isn’t all that different from punching them in the throat; kicking someone in the nuts isn’t all that different from kicking them in the stomach. Dirty moves (excluding those involving weapons) also aren’t likely to give a weak fighter a decisive advantage against a skilled one, because adrenaline mutes pain and amplifies aggression. The more likely outcome of a dirty move is that the skilled fighter will become more enraged, more determined, and more willing to fight dirty himself. Eye gouges are an exception to the above, but are very difficult to pull off unless you’re already winning.
>Seventh, weight classes exist for a reason. Yes, skills plays the role, but weight and size/strength is also important, and skills isn't always overcoming the strength and power. In a street fight situation, it can be even critical. Sure, if Bradley's opponent would be equal or similar to him in terms of height and weight, Bradley would likely lose. But if his opponent is smaller and shorter, it gives Bradley size, strength and reach advantage, which is also important in a fight.
True. Earlier, I stated that the environment matters more in a street fight, but I should note that this can favor either fighter. The less skilled bodybuilder might have environmental advantages that allow him to make better use of his strength, and the smaller professional fighter might have environmental advantages that let him leverage his skill more effectively. This is going to come down to the features of the specific location, where each fighter stands in relation to those features, their situational awareness and knowledge of their surroundings, and who has the most viable means of escape. The bodybuilder likely *can* defeat a smaller professional in a street fight, but it’s not as simple to say that he is the favorite - one could easily claim that the professional fighter is more likely to have heightened combat senses, and that all else being equal, he’ll better understand how to use the environment to his advantage.
|
>Second, Bradley Martyn is 6'3” and \~260 lbs former amateur bodybuilder and fitness influencer, who can deadlift 700 lbs and who also does an all-around exercises in order to improve his legs, arms, torso and cardio. So no, he won't "gas out quickly" in a fight.
bodybuilders typical have explosive energy for powerful lifts, but not endurance. deadlifting 700lbs doesnt translate to trying to strike/grapple for any considerable amount of time. typically bodybuilders dont train their cardio. so yes, he will gas out quickly. even most MMA fighters gas out in the 3rd round, and they've trained to fight 15 min themselves. Bradley Martyn trying to swing with 100% effort.... he wont last 5 min.
​
>Third, Bradley is not actually unskilled. He has challenged wrestlers, boxers and other fighters to spar with him and learned basic principles of fighting and moves from them. He has done some wrestling, boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and kickboxing. Like Bradley himself said – "dude, I'm not a your typical gymbro, don't underestimate me". For a big athletic guy like him, even basic and simple moves from martial arts would be enough to apply it in a fight and dominate the opponent.
basic princinciples of fighting? against PROFESSIONAL fighters? who make it their career to fight? who've been training YEARS?
​
>Fifth, street fights are unpredictable and chaotic, so everything can happen there. Bradley has noted that a lot of times, warning the fighter about how dangerous a slam against the pavement or asphalt can be, especially from someone who can deadlift 700 lbs.
yes nothing is impossible. Tyson can accidentally trip into jake paul's uppercut and vice versa. this would be one of his only chances to win a fight against say 135lb Demetrious "Mighty Mouse" Johnson but then again theres also video of DJ tapping a dude who was 248lbs in a bjj match. Size matters more than training mainly to someone who doesnt know how to fight. 9/10 times Nate Diaz is sleeping Bradley.
​
>Sixth, fighting on the street and on the ring or octagon is not the same. Fighter's own muscle memory can be both their advantage and disadvantage at the same time, especially if dirty moves are used.
you act as if the pro fighter is above fighting dirty themselves in an actual street fight. like they gonna stop fighting when going for a leg kick and they "accidentally" kick the groin cuz thats not allowed in the octagon.
​
>Seventh, weight classes exist for a reason. Yes, skills plays the role, but weight and size/strength is also important, and skills isn't always overcoming the strength and power. In a street fight situation, it can be even critical. Sure, if Bradley's opponent would be equal or similar to him in terms of height and weight, Bradley would likely lose. But if his opponent is smaller and shorter, it gives Bradley size, strength and reach advantage, which is also important in a fight.
its a matter of trained vs untrained. I agree that Mayweather aint necessarily sleeping Ngannou even tho Mayweather is the infinitely better boxer. but....Bradley is untrained. like I said before, 9/10 times Nate Diaz sleeps Bradley.
|
1d2cxjt
|
CMV: Bradley Martyn isn't really that wrong about his claims that he can beat a professional MMA fighter or a pro boxer in a street fight
|
Alright, hear me out, please. And listen to my arguments.
For someone who don't know who Bradley Martyn is, here's the information: https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Bradley_Martyn#:~:text=Bradley%20Martyn(born%3A%20May%2022%2C%201989(1989-05-22)%5Bage,Los%20Angeles%2C%20California%2C%20United%20States
First, I'm not a fan of Bradley Martyn at all. I don't like his arrogance and overconfidence, but it doesn't mean that he is always wrong.
Second, Bradley Martyn is 6'3” and ~260 lbs former amateur bodybuilder and fitness influencer, who can deadlift 700 lbs and who also does an all-around exercises in order to improve his legs, arms, torso and cardio. So no, he won't "gas out quickly" in a fight.
Third, Bradley is not actually unskilled. He has challenged wrestlers, boxers and other fighters to spar with him and learned basic principles of fighting and moves from them. He has done some wrestling, boxing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and kickboxing. Like Bradley himself said – "dude, I'm not a your typical gymbro, don't underestimate me". For a big athletic guy like him, even basic and simple moves from martial arts would be enough to apply it in a fight and dominate the opponent.
Fourth, Bradley is right about to not to underestimate him. It happens a lot when pro fighters fight debutants or athletes from a non-combat sport and it can cost them their victory. Because Bradley certainly has a puncher's chance or can use his weight and strength to press and overwhelm a smaller fighter by that, especially in a street fight situation.
Fifth, street fights are unpredictable and chaotic, so everything can happen there. Bradley has noted that a lot of times, warning the fighter about how dangerous a slam against the pavement or asphalt can be, especially from someone who can deadlift 700 lbs.
Sixth, fighting on the street and on the ring or octagon is not the same. Fighter's own muscle memory can be both their advantage and disadvantage at the same time, especially if dirty moves are used.
Seventh, weight classes exist for a reason. Yes, skills plays the role, but weight and size/strength is also important, and skills isn't always overcoming the strength and power. In a street fight situation, it can be even critical. Sure, if Bradley's opponent would be equal or similar to him in terms of height and weight, Bradley would likely lose. But if his opponent is smaller and shorter, it gives Bradley size, strength and reach advantage, which is also important in a fight.
Aright, I think that I said everything. I'm ready to listen for counter-arguments.
| 1,716,877,923
|
AlexFerrana
|
l5zzpng
|
l5zrwrg
| 7
| 3
|
CMV: Project 2025 is a highly impractical plan and will come to be remembered as nothing more than fear mongering.
All corners of Reddit's comments sections are regularly peppered with links to Project 2025 and after carefully and extensively combing the details of the manifesto, I'm genuinely curious about how exactly this *isn't* a dog whistle?
As ambitious as these conservative societies and foundations may be, they are still beholden to the grinding gears of bureaucracy and the resistance of their opposition. Republicans may have been ideologically captured by radical elites, but the political will required to accomplish the long, long list of goals here simply does not exist (on any timeline, let alone a single year). It reads like an empty campaign promise that will attract votes but never be fulfilled. It seems wholly implausible when you take the time to really consider it on a practical level.
(To be absolutely clear here, I have no doubt that Republicans *want* to do this. I'm arguing that the Project's goals are so lofty, that they *cant.)*
I see even the most sensible, well-meaning people raising alarms about it, yet any time I question those alarms, I'm inundated with downvotes but not a single rational response. Is this just fear-mongering? When we finally reach 2026, will all these folks have egg on their face?
|
>I'm genuinely curious about how exactly this *isn't* a dog whistle?
Not a "dog whistle." A dog whistle is a comment intended to communicate something to a particular audience via a means that only they can here/only they have the context to interpret a message in a specific way. For example, using the term "lazy" to communicate distain for a person of color. The word in and of itself is benign, but because of its usage in historical context, it can be used for other purposes.
I think what you're thinking of here is something close to puffery. Basically making bold claims that may not align with reality to either paint ones self in a grander light, or motivate support based upon a similar premise.
As far as your core question, strategic objectives are often not designed with the expectation that every bullet point is going to be achieved. No plan survives first contact as they say, meaning that whatever strategic plan is put in place, one can't rationally expect that every stated goal is going to be achieved. It's just wouldn't be a realistic presumption in most if not all contexts.
For example, think about other similar plans, be they mission statements, or presidential campaign promises, etc. The metric for whether a plan was successful, is simply whether it was *sufficiently* successful to satisfy constituents and the person executing the plan.
What Project 2025 is is a strategic plan, its an *ideal*, meaning the practical intent **is not** to achieve *every* stated aim, but rather to achieve *as many* strategic goals as possible, while pushing the country in that general direction. The effect of which is to move the country and governing apparatus closer to what proponents of that plan would prefer.
So while I think you're correct that it's implausible that Project 2025 will be realized in its entirety; I think that's the wrong way to measure a strategic plan's success or failure. If a portion of those objectives are achieved, one may deem the plan as being successful; to the betterment or detriment of society depending upon ones point of view. For those that would prefer not to live in the society that Project 2025 would seek to manifest, they have every reason to be alarmed.
Would it be dramatically apocalyptic? Maybe not, but even a modicum of success could potentially inflict great harm particular populations. Sound like a fairly rational thing to be concerned about to me.
|
>As ambitious as these conservative societies and foundations may be, they are still beholden to the grinding gears of bureaucracy and **the resistance of their opposition**.
>I see even the most sensible, well-meaning people raising alarms about it, yet any time I question those alarms, I'm inundated with downvotes but not a single rational response. Is this just fear-mongering? When we finally reach 2026, will all these folks have egg on their face?
Bolded by me. Your CMV self refutes. To get opposition organized you need to be aware of the threat. People going "Uh, hey is anyone else seeing this shit?" is the exact thing you'd expect from opposition no? Making it clear that an increasingly large percentage of the population is against you and having said populace on the ready so they can move when it's go time is how opposition presents itself
If you prepare and nothing happens (because Republicans couldn't or the sight of meaningful opposition caused them to change course) then oh well you wasted a bit of time making sure. If you don't prepare and something happens you're now on the back foot and slow your own reaction time.
Sure they won't get everything on the list, but they might get a few. IF you care about **anything** on the list you should assume they'll target the one you care about first and so prepare as a collective to oppose it all regardless of which they target.
|
1d2k5yi
|
CMV: Project 2025 is a highly impractical plan and will come to be remembered as nothing more than fear mongering.
|
All corners of Reddit's comments sections are regularly peppered with links to Project 2025 and after carefully and extensively combing the details of the manifesto, I'm genuinely curious about how exactly this *isn't* a dog whistle?
As ambitious as these conservative societies and foundations may be, they are still beholden to the grinding gears of bureaucracy and the resistance of their opposition. Republicans may have been ideologically captured by radical elites, but the political will required to accomplish the long, long list of goals here simply does not exist (on any timeline, let alone a single year). It reads like an empty campaign promise that will attract votes but never be fulfilled. It seems wholly implausible when you take the time to really consider it on a practical level.
(To be absolutely clear here, I have no doubt that Republicans *want* to do this. I'm arguing that the Project's goals are so lofty, that they *cant.)*
I see even the most sensible, well-meaning people raising alarms about it, yet any time I question those alarms, I'm inundated with downvotes but not a single rational response. Is this just fear-mongering? When we finally reach 2026, will all these folks have egg on their face?
| 1,716,904,813
|
taygundo
|
l612smq
|
l60zreh
| 131
| 37
|
CMV: A solution to low birthrates could be making parenthood a government paid job
Many developed countries are experiencing below replacement birthrates(2.1 per woman) Which means their countries are slowly undergoing demographic collapse. I just got the idea of parenthood being a government job to help increase it back to around 2 children per woman again in these developed countries.
Now to the Parenting job. the job would be paid for 1 child minimum wage+average cost of raising a child per month in the local area. for 2 children this would increase to average income+cost of raising 2 children in the local area. Both parents can have but only one at a time gets paid and they can change which has it freely once per month.
To monitor if the parent is in fact parenting the Childs mental and physical health info can be taken from their school to see if they are doing well. If they are doing well nothing changes. If they are doing badly it's first investigated why(to see if the problem is the child or the parent) and if the problem is the parents not parenting they are investigated. If they are found wanting the job is removed until they prove they are doing their jobs(parenting) well.
Where does the money come from? The government of course. And they need no convincing since its either get up the birthrate or face total societal collapse.
|
You have a tacit assumption here that at least part of the reason for lowered birth rates is the expense of raising them, which I agree with to some degree. I haven’t actually seen direct data to support it, but also haven’t seen data to counter it. However, your proposed solution is an extremely large and intrusive government program which only removes the cost problem by dictating the career for one parent.
Wouldn’t a much simpler solution be to better subsidize child care costs? It’s the largest single child-related cost for working families. It more efficiently uses the money since you are getting care for multiple kids per provider. It doesn’t force a parent to leave their job and upend the labor market. It only requires government oversight of providers (instead of all parents) which is already a thing.
|
Birth rates drop when women get access to education, jobs, money, and birth control.
Your idea to increase birth rates is to tell women they shouldn't use their education, have jobs, or much money?
That seems VERY unlikely to work.
>To monitor if the parent is in fact parenting the Childs mental and physical health info can be taken from their school to see if they are doing well. If they are doing well nothing changes. If they are doing badly it's first investigated why(to see if the problem is the child or the parent) and if the problem is the parents not parenting they are investigated. If they are found wanting the job is removed until they prove they are doing their jobs(parenting) well.
Add in a nanny state and you'd decrease the birth rate more. Who do you know who will give up their job who wouldn't already, and who wouldn't be LESS likely to do that if the above were to happen?
|
1d2kqvp
|
CMV: A solution to low birthrates could be making parenthood a government paid job
|
Many developed countries are experiencing below replacement birthrates(2.1 per woman) Which means their countries are slowly undergoing demographic collapse. I just got the idea of parenthood being a government job to help increase it back to around 2 children per woman again in these developed countries.
Now to the Parenting job. the job would be paid for 1 child minimum wage+average cost of raising a child per month in the local area. for 2 children this would increase to average income+cost of raising 2 children in the local area. Both parents can have but only one at a time gets paid and they can change which has it freely once per month.
To monitor if the parent is in fact parenting the Childs mental and physical health info can be taken from their school to see if they are doing well. If they are doing well nothing changes. If they are doing badly it's first investigated why(to see if the problem is the child or the parent) and if the problem is the parents not parenting they are investigated. If they are found wanting the job is removed until they prove they are doing their jobs(parenting) well.
Where does the money come from? The government of course. And they need no convincing since its either get up the birthrate or face total societal collapse.
| 1,716,906,313
|
dejamintwo
|
l614vba
|
l614at8
| 20
| 6
|
CMV: Tipping culture is one of the best employment situations and benefits workers, customers, and businesses.
Tipped employees are routinely paid more than hourly workers, and the pay generally scales with the amount of work they do. If you do more work, you get paid more. Tips are straight up revenue sharing. If the business makes money, employees get a percentage. If the business raises prices due to inflation, employees immediately get a pay increase without even negotiating.
Customers benefit. If you're broke, you can just tip a couple of dollars. If you're disgruntled, you can tip zero. If you're a millionaire you can pay their student loans. If you try to leave cash on the table in some countries, they'll chase you down the block trying to give it back to you. How does that benefit anyone?
Whether you're hiring at a $10million bistro or the dive bar a next door, both employees should be paid "fairly," but what exactly is that number? Tipping culture solves the problem automatically.
|
>Whether you're hiring at a $10million bistro or the dive bar a next door, both employees should be paid "fairly," but what exactly is that number? Tipping culture solves the problem automatically.
Let's say the server at the $10 million bistro and the server at the dive bar provide the exact same level of service. They come out, greet you, take your drink and appetizer order, bring your drinks and apps, take your entrée order, bring your entrée, check up on you regularly, refill your drink, etc, etc. Both are tipped 20% of the meal ticket. For the bistro server, where the meal cost $120, that comes out to $24, while the bar server, where the meal cost $40, only gets $8.
They provided the exact same service, how is it "fair" for one to receive $24 and the other $8?
Let's look at two servers at the bar. Both serve a table where the customers order the exact same things. Both servers provide the exact same service. The customers at one table generously tip 30%, while the customers at the other table stiff the server completely. The business is forced to pay the second server minimum wage, while the other pockets a hefty tip. How is that "fair"?
|
>Where do you live that doesn't have a department of labor who provides the lawyer for you?
I'm not telling you because I don't believe it's going to sway you at all. You're being rhetorical, but these places do exist
And you kind of ignored my point about "Missing out on wages in order to go to court and fight them". That's...kind of a big deal.
>Then that's on you to learn, just as you need to learn the local laws. There are people who've never been to America that know about tipping culture. That's why it's a culture, it is by no means a secret.
You're still just trying to justify the price obfuscation. The fact of the matter is that the price is obfuscated. The same way not baking sales tax into the price obfuscates the price.
That is objectively a negative for the customer experience. Even if "You should know!" it still puts the onus on the customer to figure out the actual price.
>But you didn't answer my question. How is it a bad thing?
I thought it was obvious. It's bad for the consumer because they're paying more for labor. The overall bill would be cheaper if there was no tipping.
|
1d2qihd
|
CMV: Tipping culture is one of the best employment situations and benefits workers, customers, and businesses.
|
Tipped employees are routinely paid more than hourly workers, and the pay generally scales with the amount of work they do. If you do more work, you get paid more. Tips are straight up revenue sharing. If the business makes money, employees get a percentage. If the business raises prices due to inflation, employees immediately get a pay increase without even negotiating.
Customers benefit. If you're broke, you can just tip a couple of dollars. If you're disgruntled, you can tip zero. If you're a millionaire you can pay their student loans. If you try to leave cash on the table in some countries, they'll chase you down the block trying to give it back to you. How does that benefit anyone?
Whether you're hiring at a $10million bistro or the dive bar a next door, both employees should be paid "fairly," but what exactly is that number? Tipping culture solves the problem automatically.
| 1,716,920,775
|
WantonHeroics
|
l62ff3n
|
l62awzt
| 7
| 4
|
CMV: Why I don't support freeing Palestine
So I have absolutely no bias whatsoever (South Asian background, and live in Canada and have a big whopping zero Palestinian or Jewish friends) and frankly had little to no knowledge or care for the historical context of this conflict. I'm not trying to pick a side but would like to confirm if my understanding is correct and get clarity of the situation as I've seen a lot of university populations, IG stories, and ppl on social media overtly supporting Palestine.
In overly simplified terms, my understanding is that:
* There was a ceasefire or at least no active war prior to October 7
* On October 7, Hamas, a terrorist org elected by the Palestinian people, decide to kill a bunch of innocent civilians at a rave
* IDF responds by bombing but in attempt to eliminate Hamas, there are also significant civilian casualties as Hamas has blended in with the civilians (is it true that IDF tells people where they will bomb before they do?)
* I'm not too clear on the rest here but my understanding is that Hamas has a bunch of Israeli civilians as hostage. There's also random social media posts claiming that both sides have beheaded children although I have no clue if that is just a farce or actually factual.
* Based on my understanding, the war would end right now if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages to Israel but are refusing to ceasefire until this happens. Does Israel want or propose a two-state solution? Hamas on the other hand would only end the war once Israel / Jewish people are basically eradicated.
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other important information here, but purely based on the above, it's insane to me how people are so anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I understand the magnitude of civilians the IDF have killed but let's put it this way: if Hamas had CLOSE to the artillery or military that the IDF possess, do you think they wouldn't do what the IDF are doing? My belief is that they would commit way more atrocities, kill way more people, etc.
At the end of the day, I am of the firm belief that Hamas has brought this onto the Palestinian people. So why should one support "freeing Palestine" if it liberates a literal terrorist organization?
And again, I don't have any reason to be for Israel. I'm not supporting them either. I just feel like it is clear to me who the greater of two evils (IDF vs Hamas) is.
|
>There was a ceasefire or at least no active war prior to October 7
This is false, there was no ceasefire in place on October 7th. I think everybody assumes this, but I haven't actually seen any proof that there was a ceasefire agreement in place that day. If you have proof though please provide it I would be happy to be wrong.
However, even if the ceasefire was in place, Israel was already violating it a few days before October 7th anyway, as they killed multiple people in Gaza. So this is a weak argument.
>IDF responds by bombing but in attempt to eliminate Hamas, there are also significant civilian casualties as Hamas has blended in with the civilians (is it true that IDF tells people where they will bomb before they do?)
I think "in an attempt to eliminate Hamas" and "significant civilian casualties" are doing a LOT of heavy lifting here.
The IDF has bombed countless sites with no evidence that it has anything to do with Hamas. They've bombed museums, cemeteries, bakeries, and cultural sites with no evidence of armed presence whatsoever. They've killed more children since last October than were killed in all active combat zones in the entire world in the prior four years COMBINED. They've killed more journalists than any other entity since Journalists without Borders started keeping track in the early 90s. And they've demonstrably lied about their actions on countless occasions at this point (a personal favorite lie being when the IDF claimed that an Arabic wall calendar found in a basement was actually a "terrorist sign in sheet" where militants sign in for their "terror shift" apparently).
As for the "warning about bombings ahead of time", I won't go into detail about that because it probably helps sometimes, but a lot of the time it's just cover to create "sterile combat zones". Essentially, the warnings serve as a way for the IDF to say "alright, we gave a warning so now we can assume anyone remaining in the area must be a militant". Which is, obviously, not how it's supposed to work. Suffice to say it's not simply the humanitarian gesture that the IDF claims it is.
>I'm not too clear on the rest here but my understanding is that Hamas has a bunch of Israeli civilians as hostage.
There are, and do you know the most effective way to get those hostages back? To agree to a ceasefire. In fact all of the hostages that have been returned to Israel during this conflict were returned during the temporary ceasefire last year. That's why the families of the hostages are currently *furious* with Netanyahu.
>Based on my understanding, the war would end right now if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages to Israel but are refusing to ceasefire until this happens. Does Israel want or propose a two-state solution? Hamas on the other hand would only end the war once Israel / Jewish people are basically eradicated.
Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire already. Israel declined that offer. And all of the other ones.
The conflict would also end right now if Israel just stopped bombing and attacking the strip. But that's not going to happen anymore than Hamas is going to surrender.
>if Hamas had CLOSE to the artillery or military that the IDF possess, do you think they wouldn't do what the IDF are doing? My belief is that they would commit way more atrocities, kill way more people, etc.
Hamas as an organization only exists because of the nature of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It wasn't even founded until 1987. So we'll never know what things would look like if the power dynamic were reversed because without the kind of power Israel possesses it's doubtful the colonial project of Israel would have happened in the first place.
>At the end of the day, I am of the firm belief that Hamas has brought this onto the Palestinian people. So why should one support "freeing Palestine" if it liberates a literal terrorist organization?
Because Palestine is not the same as Hamas. Even ignoring the West Bank where Hamas has zero control, the children of Gaza are not Hamas yet they are being slaughtered in record numbers.
I don't like Hamas anymore than you do, but I would rather them get some prisoners exchanged in a ceasefire or something than have thousands more children die.
|
>There was a ceasefire or at least no active war prior to October 7
But there was violence in the West Bank and Gaza. The settlers and the IDF were absolutely brutal against the Palestinians living in the West Bank, and Gaza has been under blockade for more than a decade now. As the UN Secretary General put it:
> It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.
>
> The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.
>
> They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.
>
> But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.
And I 100% agree with him here.
>there are also significant civilian casualties as Hamas has blended in with the civilians
While this is true the IDF also regularly ignores civilian casualties, as detailed by [whistleblowers in the IDF](https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/):
>In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants. The sources added that, in the event that the target was a senior Hamas official with the rank of battalion or brigade commander, the army on several occasions authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians in the assassination of a single commander.
This is _incredibly_ high, especially when compared to the US Army's standard of permitting ZERO intentional casualties for low-ranking militants, a dozen for high-value targets, and up to 30 for Osama bin Laden.
> the war would end right now if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages to Israel but are refusing to ceasefire until this happens. Does Israel want or propose a two-state solution?
The war will not end until Bibi has a post-war plan, which thus far he doesn't have one. We still don't know who Israel is going to put in charge of Gaza. Also, Likud's official position is that there should be no Palestinian state and Israel should be the only state between the river and sea, so there won't be a two-state solution anytime soon.
|
1d2rexc
|
CMV: Why I don't support freeing Palestine
|
So I have absolutely no bias whatsoever (South Asian background, and live in Canada and have a big whopping zero Palestinian or Jewish friends) and frankly had little to no knowledge or care for the historical context of this conflict. I'm not trying to pick a side but would like to confirm if my understanding is correct and get clarity of the situation as I've seen a lot of university populations, IG stories, and ppl on social media overtly supporting Palestine.
In overly simplified terms, my understanding is that:
* There was a ceasefire or at least no active war prior to October 7
* On October 7, Hamas, a terrorist org elected by the Palestinian people, decide to kill a bunch of innocent civilians at a rave
* IDF responds by bombing but in attempt to eliminate Hamas, there are also significant civilian casualties as Hamas has blended in with the civilians (is it true that IDF tells people where they will bomb before they do?)
* I'm not too clear on the rest here but my understanding is that Hamas has a bunch of Israeli civilians as hostage. There's also random social media posts claiming that both sides have beheaded children although I have no clue if that is just a farce or actually factual.
* Based on my understanding, the war would end right now if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages to Israel but are refusing to ceasefire until this happens. Does Israel want or propose a two-state solution? Hamas on the other hand would only end the war once Israel / Jewish people are basically eradicated.
I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other important information here, but purely based on the above, it's insane to me how people are so anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. I understand the magnitude of civilians the IDF have killed but let's put it this way: if Hamas had CLOSE to the artillery or military that the IDF possess, do you think they wouldn't do what the IDF are doing? My belief is that they would commit way more atrocities, kill way more people, etc.
At the end of the day, I am of the firm belief that Hamas has brought this onto the Palestinian people. So why should one support "freeing Palestine" if it liberates a literal terrorist organization?
And again, I don't have any reason to be for Israel. I'm not supporting them either. I just feel like it is clear to me who the greater of two evils (IDF vs Hamas) is.
| 1,716,922,927
|
Quirky-Chocolate1719
|
l62fmy8
|
l62dmjd
| 0
| -1
|
CMV: While nuclear power is a good, clean energy source, its danger outweighs its benefits
I would like to support nuclear energy, so please change my view. I think that it's simply too powerful and disasters are too costly for it to be a primary source of energy.
The first nuclear reactor went online in 1954 and the first accident involving nuclear power happened in 1957 (known as the Kyshtym Disaster). We've had two major nuclear incidents since, at Chernobyl and Fukushima, resulting in massive amounts of land being rendered inhospitable for the foreseeable future (as well as an unknown number of radiation-related deaths).
With Chernobyl, as far as I understand, the disaster was caused by willful negligence. This kind of disregard for safety in favor of results is impossible to avoid, regardless of the regulations put in place, because of the general selfishness/shortsightedness of human beings. While it may be unlikely to happen again, we can't completely rule it out and I believe the stakes are too high to allow for even the possibility of a similar disaster repeating itself.
With Fukushima, this was caused by the one-two punch of a large earthquake and subsequent tsunami releasing a large amount of radioactive debris into the surrounding areas. While this wasn't as serious as Chernobyl as far as lives lost, it still left about 80 square miles uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
Disasters will continue due simply to either human error/negligence or unlucky weather events regardless of the safeguards we put in place to prevent them. I don't believe that human beings are capable of effectively eliminating the possibility of catastrophic error.
I'm not well-researched into this topic, it was something I was thinking about today and I realized as much. I don't know a ton about this and my descriptions of both Chernobyl and Fukushima are certainly missing large amounts of information. However, I think the underlying point remains, regardless of how poorly I've described their cause or results.
My view also wouldn't be changed by only presenting nuclear energy as the lesser evil compared to fossil fuels or other harmful energy sources. While I know that to be the case, the dangers, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits. From what I understand, radioactive exclusion zones are virtually permanent and nearly instantaneous after a disaster, while we could (ideally) take steps to effectively curtain greenhouse gas emissions today.
However, I would very much like my view to be changed on this. It's one borne of both anxiety about radiation as a whole and ignorance of how nuclear reactors work and the safeguards built into them. You could change my view by showing that my fears are unfounded or based on misconceptions, or by showing that some aspect of the nuclear reactor process has changed in such a fundamental way as to make disasters functionally impossible.
|
If there’s one thing I could say, it’s that there’s loads of nuclear power plants in operation that you don’t even know about because they have very good safety records. In the NFL subreddit, you’re flaired as a patriots fan, so I’d imagine you live in New England.
https://live.staticflickr.com/8085/8529163230_fa9309651c_b.jpg
Here’s a map of power plants in New England. There’s probably one closer than you think. And there were even more, but they’ve been shut down to to protests from people who hold similar views to your own.
Also, nuclear exclusion zones are anything but permanent. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are perfectly safe. Fukushima only killed one person I believe, and didn’t even cause an impact on cancer statistics locally. Chernobyl is technically liveable (the city at least) ever since the sarcophagus was put over the reactor building.
In fact, [coal power plants emit 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy.](https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf)
And that 100 times more is barely anything. The United States has tons of wide open rural fields in the Midwest upon which nuclear plants could be built, faraway from population centers.
Also, previous disasters have been under rather extraordinary circumstances. Fukushima was hit by a fucking tsunami. Chernobyl was suffering from extreme corruption and disrepair, with a woefully outdated RBMK reactor design. Remaining plants in this configuration have been modernized and are slowly being phased out, with one shutting down this year.
Nuclear power has been steadily getting safer since its inception, and the insane efficiency of nuclear plants far outweighs our current ability to produce green energy. Nuclear is our only option that can actually replace fossil fuels. Green energy doesn’t have the efficiency right now.
|
I'm going to put aside discussions on the latest generation of nuclear power plants for a moment - TLDR they're safer and more efficient - and discuss the cost / benefit aspects of nuclear vs the alternatives
Given that a) we need power and b) current power storage technology doesn't get us where we need to be just with renewables, even if they were more widely available, the power grid requires what is called a "base load" - a source of electricity that can be ramped up and down as needed and is not dependent on variable elements outside the control of the grid operator
That's, basically, fossil fuels and nuclear power
Even if you don't consider climate change as big of an immediate crisis as some do, increase storm damage and air pollution have their own costs. They're just not costs that you can easily draw a line on a map to show the impact
Nuclear plants can be made safe - see hundreds of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers with no reactor issues of note. They also can be made *not* safe when people are careless. See K-19. So it's not that there is no risk; it's just that the risks can be made manageable
Radiation is scary for a lot of people because you don't know it's there. Or if you *do* know it's there because it's detectable with your senses, you've already taken a lethal dose
But coal plant tailings *also* are radioactive; it's just not instantly lethal. And because it's not, and because coal is widespread, people are more likely to get elevated doses from coal plants than from nuke plants
|
1d2uu3f
|
CMV: While nuclear power is a good, clean energy source, its danger outweighs its benefits
|
I would like to support nuclear energy, so please change my view. I think that it's simply too powerful and disasters are too costly for it to be a primary source of energy.
The first nuclear reactor went online in 1954 and the first accident involving nuclear power happened in 1957 (known as the Kyshtym Disaster). We've had two major nuclear incidents since, at Chernobyl and Fukushima, resulting in massive amounts of land being rendered inhospitable for the foreseeable future (as well as an unknown number of radiation-related deaths).
With Chernobyl, as far as I understand, the disaster was caused by willful negligence. This kind of disregard for safety in favor of results is impossible to avoid, regardless of the regulations put in place, because of the general selfishness/shortsightedness of human beings. While it may be unlikely to happen again, we can't completely rule it out and I believe the stakes are too high to allow for even the possibility of a similar disaster repeating itself.
With Fukushima, this was caused by the one-two punch of a large earthquake and subsequent tsunami releasing a large amount of radioactive debris into the surrounding areas. While this wasn't as serious as Chernobyl as far as lives lost, it still left about 80 square miles uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
Disasters will continue due simply to either human error/negligence or unlucky weather events regardless of the safeguards we put in place to prevent them. I don't believe that human beings are capable of effectively eliminating the possibility of catastrophic error.
I'm not well-researched into this topic, it was something I was thinking about today and I realized as much. I don't know a ton about this and my descriptions of both Chernobyl and Fukushima are certainly missing large amounts of information. However, I think the underlying point remains, regardless of how poorly I've described their cause or results.
My view also wouldn't be changed by only presenting nuclear energy as the lesser evil compared to fossil fuels or other harmful energy sources. While I know that to be the case, the dangers, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits. From what I understand, radioactive exclusion zones are virtually permanent and nearly instantaneous after a disaster, while we could (ideally) take steps to effectively curtain greenhouse gas emissions today.
However, I would very much like my view to be changed on this. It's one borne of both anxiety about radiation as a whole and ignorance of how nuclear reactors work and the safeguards built into them. You could change my view by showing that my fears are unfounded or based on misconceptions, or by showing that some aspect of the nuclear reactor process has changed in such a fundamental way as to make disasters functionally impossible.
| 1,716,930,978
|
RealitySubsides
|
l631r1j
|
l6315qp
| 44
| 2
|
CMV: Humans have yet to become the singular abstraction we refer to in language.
I’ve been studying a larger amount of history, and I also take long walks in the local frisbee golf course, which is rich with trees and other life. My mind constantly wanders while I’m walking, and for the last couple of weeks I’ve been thinking about what I’ve been studying.
I was thinking about all the different “causes” for WW2. Ranging from ideologies, geography, chronology, and even the integration of science as a massive contribution. I’ve also started to view patriotism, nationality, and culture through a more historical lens. Race and ethnicity look entirely different than how I previously saw them.
My view is that humans will eventually look very similar and all belong to the same culture. Until this point, when people use “humans” as an abstract category in which all people belong, it’s not really describing anything meaningful.
Humans are becoming more unified as time goes on. More connected and interdependent. However, our values vary wildly and to an unbalanced extent, which remains one of the largest catalysts for WW2 and will be for WW3.
Until value stabilizes, “humans” as a category holds little meaning, because people may as well live on a different planet, which they did when those values emerged (disconnected from other parts of the world). Those values started to collide 100 years ago as science progressed and globalism started to ripen after the colonial age.
Just like we likely wiped out all other hominids or mated with them, cultures of humans will remain in conflict until a singularity emerges and balance occurs, which means a shared ethnicity/culture/values which subsists without competition. WW3 will hasten this process, as genocide and holocausts are far easier to carry out.
CMV that “humans” as a singular category does not yet exist.
|
This is an arbitrary way to looking at a word. A word does not mean that the things categorized by that word need to have a shared culture. A list of other words include parents, dog and tree, none which have a shared culture.
As a distinct species, humans is a category that holds a lot of meaning. Humans are also, as far as we are aware, the only people (having sapience).
Throughout your post, you refer to humans as category many times
>Humans are becoming more unified as time goes on \[general statement that applies to all humans\]. More connected and interdependent. However, **our** values vary wildly and to an unbalanced extent, which remains one of the largest catalysts for WW2 ~~and will be for WW3.~~
...
Just like **we** likely wiped out all other hominids or mated with them
You use "we" and "our" to refer to humans, which means you are grouping them into a category.
|
Biologically you have almost everything in common with them. When we talk about humans we tend to be speaking about our species and the things which differentiate us from other species - our biology, susceptability to certain diseases, the commonalities we share with one another that we don't with, say, dogs or tulips. This naturally doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity or culture or all but the most basic of values.
|
1d2wb70
|
CMV: Humans have yet to become the singular abstraction we refer to in language.
|
I’ve been studying a larger amount of history, and I also take long walks in the local frisbee golf course, which is rich with trees and other life. My mind constantly wanders while I’m walking, and for the last couple of weeks I’ve been thinking about what I’ve been studying.
I was thinking about all the different “causes” for WW2. Ranging from ideologies, geography, chronology, and even the integration of science as a massive contribution. I’ve also started to view patriotism, nationality, and culture through a more historical lens. Race and ethnicity look entirely different than how I previously saw them.
My view is that humans will eventually look very similar and all belong to the same culture. Until this point, when people use “humans” as an abstract category in which all people belong, it’s not really describing anything meaningful.
Humans are becoming more unified as time goes on. More connected and interdependent. However, our values vary wildly and to an unbalanced extent, which remains one of the largest catalysts for WW2 and will be for WW3.
Until value stabilizes, “humans” as a category holds little meaning, because people may as well live on a different planet, which they did when those values emerged (disconnected from other parts of the world). Those values started to collide 100 years ago as science progressed and globalism started to ripen after the colonial age.
Just like we likely wiped out all other hominids or mated with them, cultures of humans will remain in conflict until a singularity emerges and balance occurs, which means a shared ethnicity/culture/values which subsists without competition. WW3 will hasten this process, as genocide and holocausts are far easier to carry out.
CMV that “humans” as a singular category does not yet exist.
| 1,716,934,693
|
landpyramid
|
l63ah5s
|
l63aaxu
| 18
| 8
|
CMV: Microsoft should altogether remove the Shift+Insert and Shift+Delete hotkeys from Windows because the only time they're used is by accident.
I'm willing to bet that virtually nobody uses the Shift+Delete and Shift+Insert hotkeys to cut and paste. It's CTRL+X and CTRL+V that everybody uses.
When editing a document, I often use SHIFT+End or SHIFT+Arrow keys to highlight some text, followed by Delete to erase it and maybe CTRL+V to paste whatever's on my clipboard into the empty space.
Unfortunately, all too often I end up doing that key combination too quickly and inadvertentely hit Shift+Delete instead of Delete, thereby replacing whatever's on my clipboard so I can no longer paste what I intended.
On top of that, when not looking it's easy to typo the Insert key by mistake when aiming for the Home or End keys, causing you to paste when you don't mean to which can lead to embarrassment when instant messaging.
My argument is that the Shift+Delete and Shift+Insert hotkeys are, at least well beyond 90% of the time, typed unintentionally by Windows users and so should be removed entirely.
How to change my view?
Has Microsoft conducted a study of people who regularly use this feature and proven false my "beyond 90% of the time it's typed unintentionally" claim?
Is it an accessibility thing? Are Shift+Insert and Shift+Delete perhaps somehow easier to type for one-handed people?
Is there some other reason to keep them that's more important than resolving the usability issues caused by typing these hotkeys by mistake?
Am I just uniquely bad at typing and virtually nobody else has this problem?
|
Consider touch typing. Touch typing is when you position your fingers to strike the keys without looking at the keyboard for reference.
When touch typing you locate groups of keys on the outer edges by feeling for where the board and edge of the key is and memorizing the layout. To find the correct position for letters in the middle (the "home" position), you feel for the raised bumps on the F and J keys; same for the 5 on the number pad.
I'm a technical writer so not only am I copy and pasting between several sources and swapping desktops with the Windows key because this desktop is all my image editing and this one has all the reference docs and that one has all my open drafts, I'm also converting shorthand jargon to the correct characters (ex. "microliter/ul" must be changed to "µL" or "(TM)" to "™") which involves heavy use of the ALT character.
I do all of these simultaneously by keeping my left hand positioned on the CTRL/SHIFT/WIN/ALT keys with my thumb free for the space bar and my right hand positioned either over the home set up top, the arrows just beneath it, and quick jumps over to the number pad.
In that arrangement it's REALLY annoying and vulnerable to miskeys when you move your left index finger to find V or C. Go ahead, try it. You have to move your finger up to X then over to C. If you lift your finger for any reason, you have to either look down or reposition over the ALT and now make 3 movements to find V.
Or you could just move your right hand up, feeling with three fingers to find the bottom row of DELETE/END/PGDOWN and go up one row.
No finger yoga and no bobbing your head up and down like a chicken. Plus touch typing just looks really cool (just me this one, I'm a technical writer an otherwise deeply uncool job).
|
I get where you're coming from. The frustration of accidentally hitting Shift+Delete or Shift+Insert instead of your intended keys can be maddening, especially when it disrupts your workflow or leads to embarrassing mistakes. But before we rally to remove these hotkeys from Windows, let's consider a few points.
First, it's worth noting that these hotkeys have been around for a long time and are part of the broader ecosystem of keyboard shortcuts that some users have grown accustomed to. While you might not use them, there are likely niche groups who do. For instance, some people with specific accessibility needs might find these shortcuts easier to use. Imagine someone who has limited mobility in one hand; the fewer keys they need to press simultaneously, the better.
Second, the issue might not be the existence of these shortcuts but rather the keyboard layout and the proximity of these keys to others. It's easy to hit the wrong key when you're in a rush or not looking at the keyboard. This is a common problem, and it’s not unique to you. However, removing these shortcuts might not be the best solution. Instead, perhaps Microsoft could offer more customization options, allowing users to disable or remap these shortcuts if they find them problematic.
Third, consider the broader implications of removing these shortcuts. If Microsoft starts removing features because a subset of users finds them inconvenient, where does it end? The beauty of a versatile operating system like Windows is its ability to cater to a wide range of users with different needs and preferences. Removing features could alienate those who rely on them, even if they are in the minority.
Lastly, while I couldn't find any specific studies conducted by Microsoft on the usage of these particular shortcuts, it's safe to assume that they wouldn't keep them around if they were entirely obsolete. Companies like Microsoft typically have extensive user data and feedback mechanisms to inform their decisions.
In conclusion, while your frustration is valid, the solution might lie in better customization options rather than outright removal. This way, everyone can tailor their experience to their needs without losing functionality that others might depend on.
|
1d2wu0w
|
CMV: Microsoft should altogether remove the Shift+Insert and Shift+Delete hotkeys from Windows because the only time they're used is by accident.
|
I'm willing to bet that virtually nobody uses the Shift+Delete and Shift+Insert hotkeys to cut and paste. It's CTRL+X and CTRL+V that everybody uses.
When editing a document, I often use SHIFT+End or SHIFT+Arrow keys to highlight some text, followed by Delete to erase it and maybe CTRL+V to paste whatever's on my clipboard into the empty space.
Unfortunately, all too often I end up doing that key combination too quickly and inadvertentely hit Shift+Delete instead of Delete, thereby replacing whatever's on my clipboard so I can no longer paste what I intended.
On top of that, when not looking it's easy to typo the Insert key by mistake when aiming for the Home or End keys, causing you to paste when you don't mean to which can lead to embarrassment when instant messaging.
My argument is that the Shift+Delete and Shift+Insert hotkeys are, at least well beyond 90% of the time, typed unintentionally by Windows users and so should be removed entirely.
How to change my view?
Has Microsoft conducted a study of people who regularly use this feature and proven false my "beyond 90% of the time it's typed unintentionally" claim?
Is it an accessibility thing? Are Shift+Insert and Shift+Delete perhaps somehow easier to type for one-handed people?
Is there some other reason to keep them that's more important than resolving the usability issues caused by typing these hotkeys by mistake?
Am I just uniquely bad at typing and virtually nobody else has this problem?
| 1,716,936,068
|
Cybyss
|
l63xx1s
|
l63j0ma
| 11
| 4
|
CMV: it’s not better to switch doors in the monty hall problem
the problem:
“Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?”
my opinion:
it’s not better to switch. assuming the goats and the car were already there, there’s not really a 1/3 chance of the door having a car behind it. there’s either a 100% or a 0% chance that it’s there.
if there are 3 million people choosing doors at random, you’d expect ~1 million to end up at each door. at this point, the chances of any random participant having chosen the right door is 1/3. 1 million of those people would be at the door that was revealed to be a goat, so there would then be 2 million people left, with 1 million at each door. therefore, someone would have a 1/2 chance of having chosen the correct door.
i’m not sure what i’m missing; i just can’t see how it would be 1/3, yet that’s “demonstrably true” and i’m not smart enough to actually be right about this
|
Conceptually, It is extremely important to know that the host knows where the door is.
Imagine this scenario that you're asked to pick 1 out of 1000 doors instead.
The odds of you picking the right door right off the bat is 1/1000, and inversely the odds of the door not being picked is 999/1000.
So at this point, you can be pretty confident that the door you're looking for is in the 999 and not the one you picked. The host decides to open 998 empty doors at once - remember he knows they are all empty, and asks you if you want to switch.
The idea here is that as long as you didn't pick the winning door at the start, it will ALWAYS be in the 999, and the host will ALWAYS get rid of the 998 losing doors. Choosing to switch is essentially choosing to open 999 doors instead of just 1.
|
Tbh, the Monty Hall problem is pretty counterintuitive, but the math is solid. When you first pick a door, you have a 1/3 chance of hitting the car and a 2/3 chance of hitting a goat. When Monty opens a door to show you a goat, that doesn't change the odds of your initial pick, it just gives you more info. So if you stick with your original choice, you still have that 1/3 chance. If you switch, you get the 2/3 odds, 'cause Monty’s basically telling you where the car is by revealing a goat.
Think about it this way: If there were 100 doors, you pick one, and Monty opens 98 of the others to show goats. Your initial pick still has that 1/100 chance, but the door you didn’t pick now has a much better chance. Same logic applies with 3 doors, just not as extreme. So yeah, switching is actually better, even tho it feels weird. Crazy, right? But the math doesn’t lie.
|
1d2yfgv
|
CMV: it’s not better to switch doors in the monty hall problem
|
the problem:
“Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?”
my opinion:
it’s not better to switch. assuming the goats and the car were already there, there’s not really a 1/3 chance of the door having a car behind it. there’s either a 100% or a 0% chance that it’s there.
if there are 3 million people choosing doors at random, you’d expect ~1 million to end up at each door. at this point, the chances of any random participant having chosen the right door is 1/3. 1 million of those people would be at the door that was revealed to be a goat, so there would then be 2 million people left, with 1 million at each door. therefore, someone would have a 1/2 chance of having chosen the correct door.
i’m not sure what i’m missing; i just can’t see how it would be 1/3, yet that’s “demonstrably true” and i’m not smart enough to actually be right about this
| 1,716,940,368
|
frogonamushroom_
|
l63tt8l
|
l63s2pv
| 84
| 1
|
CMV: Every city should have a “fent tent”
A fent tent is:
-A big tent
-Located far enough away from desirable areas
-Located close enough to the city
A fent tent has:
-Bus service
-24/7 police patrol
-24/7 EMS
-Cots and blankets for sleeping
-Methadone and other programs for those who want to get clean
-Narcan
A fent tent:
-Offers clean dose appropriate opioids administered regularly
-Hearty and healthy soup served twice a day
What society gets:
-Elimination of most property crime
-Elimination of most panhandling
-Elimination of drug use and camping in public places
What drug addicts get:
-Dignity
-The ability to have their cravings satisfied so that they can focus on making healthy choices in their lives
-Food, safety, shelter
A fent tent would pay for itself many times over.
In before:
-We tried that in Portland, and it didn’t work. No, the reason it didn’t work is because you did nothing to address the root of the problem: access to free drugs, food, and shelter.
|
Homeless/addicts will never go to a place with 24/7 police presence because most of them have warrants and/or priors and don't trust the law enforcement system. Tell me you're unfamiliar with the gory details of social work without explicitly stating that you're unfamiliar with the gory details of social work.
|
This is not the answer.
The answer is decriminalizing all drugs and allowing society to take care of the rest.
To assume that an addict of any kind let alone a fentanyl addict is able to carry on with a productive healthy life once being high is a pipe dream.
|
1d33bxv
|
CMV: Every city should have a “fent tent”
|
A fent tent is:
-A big tent
-Located far enough away from desirable areas
-Located close enough to the city
A fent tent has:
-Bus service
-24/7 police patrol
-24/7 EMS
-Cots and blankets for sleeping
-Methadone and other programs for those who want to get clean
-Narcan
A fent tent:
-Offers clean dose appropriate opioids administered regularly
-Hearty and healthy soup served twice a day
What society gets:
-Elimination of most property crime
-Elimination of most panhandling
-Elimination of drug use and camping in public places
What drug addicts get:
-Dignity
-The ability to have their cravings satisfied so that they can focus on making healthy choices in their lives
-Food, safety, shelter
A fent tent would pay for itself many times over.
In before:
-We tried that in Portland, and it didn’t work. No, the reason it didn’t work is because you did nothing to address the root of the problem: access to free drugs, food, and shelter.
| 1,716,955,518
|
MyPhilosophyAccount
|
l64upjn
|
l64o454
| 1,089
| -5
|
CMV: I don't think the 500$ League skin is a big problem.
I'm generally outraged by AAA game prices, I quit Tarkov after they teased the 250$ game version and I hate subscription services for things that should be a lifetime license.
Yet, here are my thoughts about this:
- League is free to play
- The skin doesn't give you a benefit in gameplay or convenience
- There are a lot of other cool skins for much cheaper
Believe it or not, there are people out there that actually want these skins to be that expensive so they can show off their money. I don't think the fact that Riot segments the skin prices to appeal to those customers is a bad thing.
I get that people want shiny skins and for them to be affordable, but Riot would be throwing money away if they wouldn't offer good skins for those people too.
I have yet to see the really bad consequences that were promised after riot released the 200$ skin.
My view can be changed on this if you can help me see the consequences it will have for the players and game as a whole.
|
Firstly I don’t think that riot would throw away money if they for example make it a 30$ skin line (even 40$), because its the faker skin everyone wants to have it, but now only rich people can afford it (sure people will buy it and it will probably generate more money in the short run, but i think as more people come to play lol for faker, or come back because of the skin, in the long run the skin would have gone near even).
The second point is right, but here remains the question why make a skin that provides nothing this costly?
And i think point 3, even tho theres other cool skins, even cool faker skins (ori worlds release). The outrage has not only to do with the skin beeing not affordable for a big chunk of the playerbase, it also has to do with them milking faker, because Faker is THE lol pro player that doesn’t play with skins, because he couldn’t afford it, before becoming pro.
So the question is, is the event for faker or for riot to make tons of money (sure riot wants to make money, but they could have made money, making it affordable and not doing it while milking fakers name).
All in all i can’t really disagree with your points provided, because in the end they hold true, but the outrage is alot deeper, than it seems at first.
|
So to preface, I don't actually think chromas like Dark Cosmic Jhin are an issue because it's such a low-effort collectible that's entirely optional to buy. It's incredibly easy to just look the other way and not buy it and continue enjoying the game and other skins. Meanwhile, I think that while some people are overblowing the Ahri skin, there are genuine differences between the new skin and previous chromas. Namely:
* Creating skins of that quality takes Riot many resources (splash art, design, animation), and having a high-effort blinged out skin that's inaccessible to 99% of the playerbase is bad, because in its place could have been a $50 ultimate that people could actually afford.
* There's no guarantee that if this turns out to be profitable (which is quite likely), that Riot won't continue to use the same whale model for ultimate skins, rather than offer them at a affordable premium like in the past
* Unlike random skin releases, this is specifically tied to honoring Faker as a player. People who are really big fans of Faker or T1 have a valid reason to be upset that something that should have been a great opportunity to commemorate and celebrate one of the greatest esport players of all time (and probably the most reknown) is used as an obvious money-grab. Especially so if they wanted to buy it to support their favorite player or team but can't justify this purchase. On a slightly related note, this is almost certainly the reason why an affordable Ahri skin for T1 worlds won't be releasing, so it does actually impact players just by existing. There are a lot more Ahri players than Orianna players.
|
1d35nr6
|
CMV: I don't think the 500$ League skin is a big problem.
|
I'm generally outraged by AAA game prices, I quit Tarkov after they teased the 250$ game version and I hate subscription services for things that should be a lifetime license.
Yet, here are my thoughts about this:
- League is free to play
- The skin doesn't give you a benefit in gameplay or convenience
- There are a lot of other cool skins for much cheaper
Believe it or not, there are people out there that actually want these skins to be that expensive so they can show off their money. I don't think the fact that Riot segments the skin prices to appeal to those customers is a bad thing.
I get that people want shiny skins and for them to be affordable, but Riot would be throwing money away if they wouldn't offer good skins for those people too.
I have yet to see the really bad consequences that were promised after riot released the 200$ skin.
My view can be changed on this if you can help me see the consequences it will have for the players and game as a whole.
| 1,716,964,579
|
Cuetsie
|
l654rz9
|
l654izi
| 16
| 7
|
CMV: Malcolm Collins “hitting” his two year old son is justified by his own logic and not clearly abusive
Simone and Malcolm Collins two pronatalist advocates who have a bunch of kids recently got into a controversy over Malcolm appearing to hit his son during an interview. He says that what he did isn’t analogous to corporal punishment because studies on the inefficacy of corporal punishment focus on a ritualized humiliation ritual done on the child with substantial delay from the offence, while what he did was an immediate response designed to shift the child’s attention based on a thing done by farmers with farm animals. I don’t think I would do the practice myself, and if I did I think I would snap my fingers in front of their face instead, but it seems to be a potentially useful method, distinct from corporal punishment.
I don’t approve of all of their lifestyle choices, especially their children’s names, but I think this thing probably needs research on it specifically to make judgment on its efficacy and I don’t believe it is caused by anger on his part.
|
He is incorrect in his assumptions about study of physical violence as a teaching method. It is *not* only studied in a "ritualized humiliation ritual done on the child with substantial delay"
There are things you can and should do instead of hitting your children.
|
Tbf, comparing kids to farm animals is a bit of a stretch. I get what you're saying about the immediate response being different from typical corporal punishment, but hitting a kid to "shift their attention" is pretty iffy no matter how you spin it. Like, sure, maybe snapping fingers can be less dramatic, but we shouldn’t need more studies to know that physical responses to kids’ behavior probably aren't the best way to go.
Research might show some nuanced differences, but at the end of the day, hitting just feels like a slippery slope. Plus, there's a bunch of other non-violent ways to handle these situations – like, y'know, actually talking to the kid or redirecting them verbally. Idk, maybe he wasn't angry, but the optics of an adult hitting a small kid are never really gonna be great.
|
1d36ofq
|
CMV: Malcolm Collins “hitting” his two year old son is justified by his own logic and not clearly abusive
|
Simone and Malcolm Collins two pronatalist advocates who have a bunch of kids recently got into a controversy over Malcolm appearing to hit his son during an interview. He says that what he did isn’t analogous to corporal punishment because studies on the inefficacy of corporal punishment focus on a ritualized humiliation ritual done on the child with substantial delay from the offence, while what he did was an immediate response designed to shift the child’s attention based on a thing done by farmers with farm animals. I don’t think I would do the practice myself, and if I did I think I would snap my fingers in front of their face instead, but it seems to be a potentially useful method, distinct from corporal punishment.
I don’t approve of all of their lifestyle choices, especially their children’s names, but I think this thing probably needs research on it specifically to make judgment on its efficacy and I don’t believe it is caused by anger on his part.
| 1,716,968,879
|
ImmanuelYemos
|
l659ti6
|
l659a6a
| 13
| 4
|
CMV: It's unnecessary to note edits for minor spelling, grammar, or slight clarifications on Reddit posts.
I believe that it's wholly unnecessary to note an edit in a Reddit post if the only changes made were to fix spelling, grammar, or to clarify the prose slightly. Adding annotations like "EDIT: spelling" for these minor adjustments clutters the post and distracts from the main content.
In my view, noting edits should only be required if you've made substantive changes that alter the meaning or added new points to the discussion.
I'd love to hear opposing viewpoints or reasons why others think even minor edits should be noted on Reddit posts. Change my view!
|
Hey to confirm - you realize its possible to see that a comment or post has been edited from reddit itself? Like check out [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/1d3escg/comment/l66piq8/) I made recently then edited. Ignore the content itself where I call out the Edit, look at the timestamps to see that it shows you when i edited the comment
So that comment isn't a great example because I added significantly more content and was clear about it. But if instead I had gone back and just tweaked some spelling you would still see the edit timestamp. Adding "Edit: spelling" gives an indication of what was edited at that time. Especially if the comment is part of a comment chain going back and forth
|
>I believe that it's wholly unnecessary to note an edit in a Reddit post if the only changes made were to fix spelling, grammar, or to clarify the prose slightly. Adding annotations like "EDIT: spelling" for these minor adjustments clutters the post and distracts from the main content.
>In my view, noting edits should only be required if you've made substantive changes that alter the meaning or added new points to the discussion.
You seem to have an odd working definition of 'necessary' and 'required.' Some people choose to do it.
People want to note it so people don't think an edited tag means they changed the actual meaning or content of the post, that's up to them.
Why does it bother you? No one is requiring it.
|
1d3fxmm
|
CMV: It's unnecessary to note edits for minor spelling, grammar, or slight clarifications on Reddit posts.
|
I believe that it's wholly unnecessary to note an edit in a Reddit post if the only changes made were to fix spelling, grammar, or to clarify the prose slightly. Adding annotations like "EDIT: spelling" for these minor adjustments clutters the post and distracts from the main content.
In my view, noting edits should only be required if you've made substantive changes that alter the meaning or added new points to the discussion.
I'd love to hear opposing viewpoints or reasons why others think even minor edits should be noted on Reddit posts. Change my view!
| 1,716,999,020
|
_robjamesmusic
|
l6702ft
|
l66z5f3
| 31
| 5
|
CMV: Generally speaking, the concept of “fatphobia” is stupid and harmful
Being fat is, objectively speaking, unhealthy - physically for sure, but very often mentally, as well. Whether or not you find it attractive is a matter of personal preference (though, as a general rule of thumb, I don't think many people do), but there is nothing wrong (one could even argue it's morally incumbent upon you, like with smoking, alcohol, etc.) with recognizing that it isn't good for you, and encouraging people to act accordingly.
This (obviously) goes for both men and women. We should not be enabling and promoting obesity in the guise of "acceptance" and "self-love" - imagine we started normalizing alcoholism. I don't personally believe shaming people is generally a good idea; but to turn a blind eye to it is something else entirely.
Am I crazy?
|
>We should not be enabling and promoting obesity in the guise of "acceptance" and "self-love"
I think this is the hidden crux of the argument.
I won't tell you that never happens. For every movement you can find a bad actor or crazy twitter zealot who takes it too far. I also won't deny that the *body-positivity* movement doesn't accidentally foster such an environment. It is a well known criticism, as is the one that certain amounts of weight are unhealthy.
But that precise criticism is why (as of around 2015 or so) people started shifting from *body-positivity* to *body-neutrality*. [\[source\]](https://www.verywellmind.com/body-positivity-vs-body-neutrality-5184565). While the goal of *body-positivity* is to fight *"I hate the way I look"* with *"I love the way I look"*. The core claim about *body-neutrality* is the fight against *"I hate the way I look"* with *"I don't think about my appearance"*. Its a refusal to play the game - and instead focus on lifestyle, which often includes more exercise and healthier eating.
We all want the same thing - for people to be as mentally and physically healthy as possible. Which begs the question; "Surely hating your body and the way you look is a good motivation to change? Why would be want to stop people feeling that way?".
While it sometimes a motivator, especially if it can be fixed in the short to medium term or no other options are available - it doesn't work for a lot of people. A lot of people end up in a **cycle of shame** (or similar) where their self hate ends up making them feel like there is no point in improving or scuppering any attempts to self improve. In fact the majority of fat people you see are fat *because* stigma isn't a good motivator for them.
In fact shame based *quick diets* don't seem to work terribly well. People often relapse and regain weight or unhealthy habits down the road.
*Body-positivity* is a tool to help find mental health first so either (a) the mind is mentally healthy even if the body is unhealthy, (b) they can improve their health and remain stable (e.g. not getting fatter and exercising more regularly) or (c) can later work on their body towards a better point via self love of their body and life.
*Body-neutrality* is a tool that helps people focus on living their life in a better way regardless of their body. It doesn't mean forgetting that your body is what it is - just not punishing yourself for it or feeling shame. This likewise can either lead to better mental health and a stable bodyweight OR lead to an overall improvement as their healthier lifestyle slowly kicks in.
A lot of what I have said applies not only to fatness but also other aspects of body and health. But to circle back to fatphobia. Fatphobia is bound up in the ways people treat others worse or as lesser for being fat. A lot of it is about making negative comments about others' obesity. Fatphobia goes beyond the mere statement that "being obese causes other health complications" and stigmatises fat people and fatness as a whole.
>Being fat is, objectively speaking, unhealthy - physically for sure, but very often mentally, as well.
This is largely irrelevant. Your body and health is none of my business. If I treat you a certain way because of it then I am the arsehole.
As I have laid out - the majority of people (even people who embrace body-positivity and body-neutrality) know and accept this. The main goal of most people is a better life, and better health. Perhaps not perfect health (who among us can claim to be perfectly healthy?) but better.
>Whether or not you find it attractive is a matter of personal preference (though, as a general rule of thumb, I don't think many people do)
Then... just don't date fat people? No need to make a big deal out of it.
>(in fact, I’d venture to claim that it's morally incumbent upon you to, like with smoking, alcohol, etc.) with recognizing that it isn't good for you, and encouraging people to act accordingly.
As I have laid out - there are ways of approaching this other than fatphobia.
|
Not all fat people are actually unhealthy.
There is a term "MHO" to describe such people, "Metabolically Healthy Obese". Lots of academic results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=mho+metabolically+healthy&oq=mho
There is another similar term, "TOFI" to describe the opposite, when you appear to be slim but are "fat on the inside". Again, plenty of academic results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=tofi+thin&btnG=
You're simply just "higher risk" if you're obese.
Bear in mind as hell that the majority of the time, people who are "obese" are determined to be such by BMI, which whole better than nothing has its issues.
I think besides that you're also misinterpreting what body positivity and fat phobia are. Body positivity encourages acceptance, in other words you accept that some people are obese, don't discriminate, and treat them with respect. The same way you might accept that someone drinks alcohol while you don't, or whatever else. Fat phobia is literally the opposite of this.
Like let's say you personally think all religion is bullshit. Are you going to go up to a Jewish person and start shaming them for their choice to follow Judaism?
Besides, negative reinforcement is generally an ineffective way to promote change in someone. This applies to many aspects of behavioral training that go even beyond eating and exercise patterns, it's very well studied.
|
1d3kis0
|
CMV: Generally speaking, the concept of “fatphobia” is stupid and harmful
|
Being fat is, objectively speaking, unhealthy - physically for sure, but very often mentally, as well. Whether or not you find it attractive is a matter of personal preference (though, as a general rule of thumb, I don't think many people do), but there is nothing wrong (one could even argue it's morally incumbent upon you, like with smoking, alcohol, etc.) with recognizing that it isn't good for you, and encouraging people to act accordingly.
This (obviously) goes for both men and women. We should not be enabling and promoting obesity in the guise of "acceptance" and "self-love" - imagine we started normalizing alcoholism. I don't personally believe shaming people is generally a good idea; but to turn a blind eye to it is something else entirely.
Am I crazy?
| 1,717,010,712
|
Clear-Sport-726
|
l688dbq
|
l684i9k
| 33
| 4
|
CMV: School Choice and the Ideas surrounding it are bad especially for poorer or special needs kids
Hi this is a debate I’ve had in my head for a little while though I feel as if my arguments are weak and I seek some pushback to change my view on the subject.
#1 Private/Charter schools often cherry pick students in order to make sure that they can get the best numbers in order to to continue to justify their existence. This leaves those with special needs or live in conditions not conclusive to learning left in public schools that are now underfunded.
#2 A school voucher system would only serve to subsidize the rich while leaving less resources for the poor. Let’s assume that there are two kids rich kid a and poor kid b. Kid A’s parents send him to a 50k a year private school top notch in every manner, kid b goes to public school and really can’t afford to send him anywhere else. If they both received a 10k dollar school voucher kid a essentially just got they’re education at a discount while kid b is stuck at an even worse public school as now more and more children pull out to go to better schooling.
#3 Many private but especially charter schools have major accountability issues. The key one I have seen were major problems with charter schools not reporting academic data. This is obviously really bad as we need to be able to access the abilities of children in all forms of education.
#4 ideological extremism this is probably my weakest point but a key motivation of those for school choice and voucher systems is the ability to be able to ensure that they’re children aren’t exposed to ideologies they find unsavory. I think it’s especially bad when we see things like banning sex ed considering how important it is to lower younger pregnancies and arming children with the vocabulary to speak about any form of assault. Or how banning “DEI” or “Critical Race Theory” could lead to children learning misinformed versions of U.S. history. By and large I don’t think it’s healthy for a society to have large groups of people live utterly insulated from the ideas of others
|
1. I think you're lumping private schools and charter schools together when they are actually distinct entities. Charter schools receive public funding and as such actually cannot use selective admission criteria - they \*must\* use a lottery system if they have more applicants than spots and \*cannot\* charge tuition.
2. Because of the lottery system and the lack of tuition, charter schools actually provide lower income students a better chance at receiving a quality education. For non-charter public schools, the school a child attends is determined primarily by which neighborhood a family can afford to live in.
3. I'm not sure if you are lumping private schools and charter schools together or not, but I'm not familiar with the accountability issue.
4. Charter schools definitely \*can\* be extremely ideological, but they also can just be relatively normal schools. If you are concerned about ideologically-driven curricula, you just need to pass laws regulating what is taught - you don't need to ban them entirely.
|
Your concerns about school choice and the voucher system are valid and touch on some critical issues that deserve serious consideration. Let's break down each of your points and explore them further.
1. **Cherry-Picking Students**: It's true that private and charter schools often have the luxury of selecting their students, which can lead to a concentration of resources and attention on those who are already advantaged. This leaves public schools, which are required to accept all students, with a disproportionate number of children who need additional support. This can exacerbate existing inequalities, as public schools may struggle with fewer resources and higher needs.
2. **Voucher System Subsidizing the Rich**: The scenario you describe is a real concern. Vouchers can indeed provide a discount to wealthy families who can already afford private education, while not being sufficient to cover the full cost for poorer families. This can lead to a situation where public schools are further underfunded as more students leave, creating a vicious cycle of declining quality and resources.
3. **Accountability Issues**: The lack of accountability in some charter schools is a significant problem. Without proper oversight, it's difficult to ensure that these schools are providing a quality education. Public schools, despite their flaws, are subject to more rigorous standards and reporting requirements, which helps maintain a baseline of accountability.
4. **Ideological Extremism**: This is a nuanced point, but it's important. Education should expose students to a broad range of ideas and perspectives, helping them to become well-rounded and critical thinkers. When schools are able to insulate students from certain ideologies, it can lead to a more polarized and less informed society. Topics like sex education and critical race theory are essential for understanding the complexities of the world and fostering a more inclusive and empathetic society.
In conclusion, while school choice and voucher systems may offer benefits to some, they also pose significant risks, particularly for the most vulnerable students. It's crucial to consider these potential downsides and work towards solutions that ensure all children have access to a high-quality education, regardless of their background or circumstances. Your arguments are far from weak; they highlight important issues that need to be addressed in any discussion about education reform.
|
1d3nae0
|
CMV: School Choice and the Ideas surrounding it are bad especially for poorer or special needs kids
|
Hi this is a debate I’ve had in my head for a little while though I feel as if my arguments are weak and I seek some pushback to change my view on the subject.
#1 Private/Charter schools often cherry pick students in order to make sure that they can get the best numbers in order to to continue to justify their existence. This leaves those with special needs or live in conditions not conclusive to learning left in public schools that are now underfunded.
#2 A school voucher system would only serve to subsidize the rich while leaving less resources for the poor. Let’s assume that there are two kids rich kid a and poor kid b. Kid A’s parents send him to a 50k a year private school top notch in every manner, kid b goes to public school and really can’t afford to send him anywhere else. If they both received a 10k dollar school voucher kid a essentially just got they’re education at a discount while kid b is stuck at an even worse public school as now more and more children pull out to go to better schooling.
#3 Many private but especially charter schools have major accountability issues. The key one I have seen were major problems with charter schools not reporting academic data. This is obviously really bad as we need to be able to access the abilities of children in all forms of education.
#4 ideological extremism this is probably my weakest point but a key motivation of those for school choice and voucher systems is the ability to be able to ensure that they’re children aren’t exposed to ideologies they find unsavory. I think it’s especially bad when we see things like banning sex ed considering how important it is to lower younger pregnancies and arming children with the vocabulary to speak about any form of assault. Or how banning “DEI” or “Critical Race Theory” could lead to children learning misinformed versions of U.S. history. By and large I don’t think it’s healthy for a society to have large groups of people live utterly insulated from the ideas of others
| 1,717,018,362
|
SadStudy1993
|
l68nhxp
|
l68l9yv
| 4
| 1
|
CMV: It is perfectly reasonable that life is unique to Earth
Note I am confining my argument to the observable universe.
The popular viewpoint expressed on Reddit is that the Universe is at such a scale that even if extremely rare, life surely must still occur an enormous amount of times.
However, those that believe this probably aren’t very familiar with the sheer scale of probabilities at any rate of complexity, or really statistics as a whole.
For instance, the number of unique arrangements of a deck of 52 cards greatly exceeds the number of stars estimated to exist in the observable universe. So much so that the sum number of stars is a negligible (essentially 0) percentage of the overall number of combinations.
So it’s perfectly conceivable at our scale of complexity that we’re a statistical anomaly, because statistical anomalies are a rule, not an exception at complexity. IE most complex states are unique.
And abiogenesis might be very very hard. In fact, the prevailing view of biologists is that we’re the result of a single abiogenesis event.
The popular counterpoint is that abiogenesis seemed to occur very soon after our planet’s habitability, which again doesn’t make sense.
That is because it is analytically proven that extremely rare events will occur at a normal distribution in a given span.
And it’s often stated that it’s “arrogant” to assume that we’re unique in the universe but to me it seems that the opposite is true. The universe doesn’t privilege life as a phenomenon of complexity. In fact the universe seems ultimately biased against complexity.
Sure, life would be extraordinary if it only existed on earth but it’s easy to believe that at our scale - a scale which allows for complexity - that extraordinary, unique phenomena occur in every star system. It just might not interest us because it isn’t life. If you can conceive that no two planets are exactly alike, you can also conceive that life itself could be a unique phenomenon.
And even if abiogenesis turns out to be likely enough that it occurs frequently in star systems - a big ask - multi-cellular life could be such a unique evolution that it may as well be unique to Earth. It took roughly 3 billion years for life to evolve beyond multi-cellular life. A significant portion of the history of the universe.
This means that multi-cellular life arising is again extremely unlikely. And given that planets may have to be stable for that period of time for that sustained period of time means that the compounding factors that allow for life results in probabilities that soon greatly outweighs the scale of the observable universe.
And I won’t even start on the likelihoods involved with intelligent technological civilizations. As that would require several more paragraphs.
And you might say that if it happened to us, it’s hard to believe it hasn’t happened elsewhere. And that’s just survivorship bias. Even if the number of all possible outcomes greatly outweigh the number of outcomes that do actually occur, only said outcomes that actually happen get to marvel at their likelihood of occurring. And the universe doesn’t privilege life over a technically unique rock formation.
We’re a sample size of 1, so it isn’t possible to know either way. But it is perfectly conceivable that we are the only instance of complex life in the universe.
|
>Abiogenesis might be very, very hard. In fact, the prevailing view of biologists is that we’re the result of a single abiogenesis event.
Life on earth being from single abiogenesis event does not mean that abiogenesis is rare. In fact, most biologist agree that after abiogenesis occurred, it is very likely that it prevented any other case of abiogenesis to happen because new abiogenesis would not only need to form new life, but also do it in a manner that would prevent already established life from outcompeting it in an environment that it already had time to adapt to.
As for rest of the post, you are looking at it completely wrong. Your own train of thoughts ignores the compoundness of probability. If abiogenesis does not happen than following events don't happen. Same with following events. This means that probability for final event events will be dependent on probability of events before. As you stated yourself, probability of any of those events is unknown - it can be rare or it can be common. So for your own understanding of P(D) being low, it would also necessitate P(A), P(B) and P(C) to be low. Because if they aren't we are limiting existence of intelligent technological life to be the only factor deciding on existence of it.
To put it more simply, universe is quite big and so is number of stars, number of planets and number of life-capable planets. Lower bracket of estimated number of galaxies is 2\*10\^11. Estimation of earth-like planets in Milky Way is 4\*10\^10. This means that in universe there are 8\*10\^21. This means sextilion places for possible development of life.
This means that for your rare life concept the probability of life emergence should be much higher than 1:8\*10\^21. As there is relatively equal chance for it to be higher or lower - based only on maths you have 50% chance of being right.
But such high probability would need reasons - and from what we already know, most of possible reasons are more likely to support lower probability. Compounds needed for abiogenesis are relatively common so it is more likely for it to not be rare. Emergence of multi-cellular life is still 50/50 unless we find other examples of multicellular life. But as soon as multicellular life exists, probability to evolve plethora of flora and fauna is quite certain - we do have examples of extinct multicellular life. As soon as we have that, then there is probability of developing intelligence. Which is high as we have multiple examples of intelligent life on Earth. Same with sapience - we have example of other specie that was sapient.
All of that means that your assumption will need all steps to at the same time be rare enough that they are at the same time unlikely to happen and did happen exactly once on Earth. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No - it would need very specific set of probabilities to happen exactly right. Which is unlikely.
And all of that only takes into account carbon-based sapient animal life. There are also possibilities of other types of life existing and developing.
|
At least you’re honest. I’ve got a way to break it down that might help:
From middle-school math class, you might remember how probabilities are combined - if you flip a coin, you have a 1/2 chance of getting heads. If you roll a 6-sided die, you have a 1/6 chance of getting a 4. What are the odds of getting both a heads on the coin and a 4 on the die? 1/2 x 1/6 = 1/12. You *combine* the probabilities by multiplying them together (aka combinatorics).
So if you have several different unlikely events, and you want to know the likelihood of them all happening, you multiply them together. Even if the individual probabilities aren’t all that bad, they can get much worse by combining. Say we want the probability of flipping heads on a coin, rolling a 4 on a 6-sided die, a 18 or higher on a 20-sided die, and getting your drivethrough order right at McD’s. That’s 1/2 x 1/6 x 3/20 x 12% (12/100) = 36/24000 or 0.15%.
In fact, if there are a lot of events, the combining quickly spirals out of control, even if the events are likely. Let’s say there is a 99% chance of something happening. You should expect it to keep happening over and over and over, right? It’s close to 100%, so why not just say it always happens? Well, if we combine that .99 over and over and over again, it gets very improbable. Any guess how many times you’d have to combine a 99% probability to make it less likely than a coin-flip? **69** - *nice*.
So now think about what happens mathematically when there are millions of different, sometimes very unlikely events that all had to happen in concert - the combined probability gets abysmally low. There are lots of stars and planets in our massive universe, but combinatorial explosion eats them up real quick. To put it into perspective, one estimate is that there are 700 quintillion planets in the universe. That sounds like a lot, and it is. To be precise, that is 7 x 10^20 . With a probability of 10%, you could combine it 100 times, and the probability would be 1 / (1 x 10^100 ). So the expected number of times that event should have occurred if given a shot on each planet would be
(7 x 10^20 ) x 1 / (1 x 10^100 ) =
(7 x 10^20 ) / (10^100 ) =
7 / 10^80 =
0.00000…seventy more zeroes…00007
|
1d3oak6
|
CMV: It is perfectly reasonable that life is unique to Earth
|
Note I am confining my argument to the observable universe.
The popular viewpoint expressed on Reddit is that the Universe is at such a scale that even if extremely rare, life surely must still occur an enormous amount of times.
However, those that believe this probably aren’t very familiar with the sheer scale of probabilities at any rate of complexity, or really statistics as a whole.
For instance, the number of unique arrangements of a deck of 52 cards greatly exceeds the number of stars estimated to exist in the observable universe. So much so that the sum number of stars is a negligible (essentially 0) percentage of the overall number of combinations.
So it’s perfectly conceivable at our scale of complexity that we’re a statistical anomaly, because statistical anomalies are a rule, not an exception at complexity. IE most complex states are unique.
And abiogenesis might be very very hard. In fact, the prevailing view of biologists is that we’re the result of a single abiogenesis event.
The popular counterpoint is that abiogenesis seemed to occur very soon after our planet’s habitability, which again doesn’t make sense.
That is because it is analytically proven that extremely rare events will occur at a normal distribution in a given span.
And it’s often stated that it’s “arrogant” to assume that we’re unique in the universe but to me it seems that the opposite is true. The universe doesn’t privilege life as a phenomenon of complexity. In fact the universe seems ultimately biased against complexity.
Sure, life would be extraordinary if it only existed on earth but it’s easy to believe that at our scale - a scale which allows for complexity - that extraordinary, unique phenomena occur in every star system. It just might not interest us because it isn’t life. If you can conceive that no two planets are exactly alike, you can also conceive that life itself could be a unique phenomenon.
And even if abiogenesis turns out to be likely enough that it occurs frequently in star systems - a big ask - multi-cellular life could be such a unique evolution that it may as well be unique to Earth. It took roughly 3 billion years for life to evolve beyond multi-cellular life. A significant portion of the history of the universe.
This means that multi-cellular life arising is again extremely unlikely. And given that planets may have to be stable for that period of time for that sustained period of time means that the compounding factors that allow for life results in probabilities that soon greatly outweighs the scale of the observable universe.
And I won’t even start on the likelihoods involved with intelligent technological civilizations. As that would require several more paragraphs.
And you might say that if it happened to us, it’s hard to believe it hasn’t happened elsewhere. And that’s just survivorship bias. Even if the number of all possible outcomes greatly outweigh the number of outcomes that do actually occur, only said outcomes that actually happen get to marvel at their likelihood of occurring. And the universe doesn’t privilege life over a technically unique rock formation.
We’re a sample size of 1, so it isn’t possible to know either way. But it is perfectly conceivable that we are the only instance of complex life in the universe.
| 1,717,020,956
|
lonelinessmademecave
|
l69gkyw
|
l69dg4j
| 7
| 1
|
CMV: 21 years old is "too old" to have your first sexual and romantic experiences
I am 21 years old and I never dated and still a virgin.
21 years old and still being a virgin is pathetic and shameful because many teens have sex and date. people have their first relationship, sexual experience, and date as teenagers.
being a grown ass man with no "adult experiences" is so embarassing and something to be rightfully upset about.
I fucking hate how my life turned out.
i feel like having sex and dating at this age wont have the same excitement, pleasure, and "magic" as a teenaer.
here in the UK, the average age to "lose your virginity" is only 16.
I dont care that the sex and relationships are "bad" and awkward. thats not the fucking point.
I do NOT wanna harm anyone but I cant help but sympathize with guys like elliot rodgers. he was 22 years old and still a virgin. I can understand why he would feel so angry and ashamed about it.
|
Hey there,
First off, I want to acknowledge that your feelings are valid. It's clear you're going through a tough time, and it's important to talk about it. However, I think it's crucial to challenge some of the assumptions you're making about age, sex, and relationships.
Let's start with the idea that 21 is "too old" for first experiences. Society often puts a lot of pressure on us to hit certain milestones by specific ages, but the truth is, everyone moves at their own pace. There's no universal timeline for when you should have your first romantic or sexual experience. Some people find love in their teens, others in their 30s, 40s, or even later. It's all part of the human experience.
You mentioned feeling embarrassed and ashamed, but it's important to remember that your worth isn't determined by your sexual history. Being a "grown ass man" without these experiences doesn't make you any less of a person. In fact, it can be a sign of maturity and self-respect to wait until you're truly ready, rather than rushing into something because you feel pressured by societal norms.
As for the "magic" of teenage experiences, it's worth noting that many people look back on their teenage years and cringe at the awkwardness and mistakes. The excitement and pleasure of sex and relationships can be just as profound, if not more so, when you're older and more emotionally mature. You might find that your experiences are richer and more meaningful because you have a better understanding of yourself and what you want.
It's also important to address the mention of Elliot Rodger. While it's understandable to feel empathy for someone who struggled with similar feelings, it's crucial to remember that his actions were driven by a toxic mindset and resulted in tragic violence. It's okay to feel frustrated and upset, but it's essential to channel those emotions in a healthy and constructive way. Seeking support from friends, family, or a mental health professional can be incredibly helpful.
Lastly, try to be kind to yourself. Life doesn't always go according to plan, and that's okay. Focus on building a life that makes you happy, and the rest will follow in its own time. You're not alone in feeling this way, and there are many people out there who can relate to your experience.
Take care.
|
As someone who had sex at 18, while it was fun having sex as an adult is so much better you have more money, you don’t have to worry about parental approval m, you’re both way more mentally mature. I looked through your profile a little and saw you post about this type a thing quite a bit so here’s some advice.
1. Sex is not the best all end all and it’s not really what you think you want anyway. Because one day you’ll probably have sex and guess what you’ll wake up the next day the same guy. It’s not that insanely special of a thing you’ll be able to act much more naturally around those you’re romantically into
2. Make friends and be social. I know that this can be hard especially if you aren’t a college student of some kind and thus a lot of social circles are closed. But try to find a good group of friends you can be social with and go to events with. I’m not saying get turned up every weekend but try to find a way to be social and interact with people. A lot of relationships blossom from friendships too. Though you can’t go into these friendships with only the idea of making someone you’re partner if it’s not genuine interest it won’t last
3. This will sound cliche but embody the positive parts of your personality. Some guys are cool, some guys are tough, find the positive parts of you that are endearing to others and try to embody them in what you do. I for example love romance I write love poems, and letters, and I love to cook for my partners. And my partners love it because it makes them feel special and loved try to do this.
4. And this is the hardest be prepared for heart break. It might happen but you need to bounce back because none of it is the best all end all feel those emotions and try to move forwards as best you can
|
1d3p1vk
|
CMV: 21 years old is "too old" to have your first sexual and romantic experiences
|
I am 21 years old and I never dated and still a virgin.
21 years old and still being a virgin is pathetic and shameful because many teens have sex and date. people have their first relationship, sexual experience, and date as teenagers.
being a grown ass man with no "adult experiences" is so embarassing and something to be rightfully upset about.
I fucking hate how my life turned out.
i feel like having sex and dating at this age wont have the same excitement, pleasure, and "magic" as a teenaer.
here in the UK, the average age to "lose your virginity" is only 16.
I dont care that the sex and relationships are "bad" and awkward. thats not the fucking point.
I do NOT wanna harm anyone but I cant help but sympathize with guys like elliot rodgers. he was 22 years old and still a virgin. I can understand why he would feel so angry and ashamed about it.
| 1,717,022,997
|
Uncontainable_SCP
|
l693rb6
|
l691gs2
| 43
| 2
|
CMV: Greek myths are mostly a waste of rime
I wonder to myself why are Greek myths held in high regard in our day and age when we don't really benefit from their stories.
The stories depict the gods as idiots whose intellect is easily bested by humans or demi-gods... The stories have gods committing heinous crimes themselves or simply letting their pride and ego getting to their heads...
Now I will admit, there is one myth I have always been fond of, which is the myth of Icarus and that is because of its metaphoric strengths and how poetic the story is.
But I find that majority of Greek myths are just straight up random plots with little wisdom to gain for the effort you put in to understand the story...
What is so worthwhile about Greek myths that well educated and intellectuals admire? Give me examples to prove your point.
|
>What is so worthwhile about Greek myths that well educated and intellectuals admire? Give me examples to prove your point.
If you want to look for a point in the stories, the moral lessons are not typical. What makes them most worthwhile to "educated" people is that they are the basis and reference points for vast swathes of both high and low culture, from art and literature to philosophy. Think of it like your internet memes on a grander scale. You need knowledge of the myths to get the references in the books and plays you read. Similar to the base value of a lot of Shakespeare's oeuvre
|
We remember and study Greek myths not because they're super useful but because they're very old and represent the beginning of Western culture (Ancient Greece -> Ancient Rome -> Us). They tell us how our ancient (cultural) ancestors saw their world and they've been built upon ever since. They're not the key to unlocking modern life; they're a cultural heritage that we remember because humans tend to value knowing where they came from.
|
1d3qbml
|
CMV: Greek myths are mostly a waste of rime
|
I wonder to myself why are Greek myths held in high regard in our day and age when we don't really benefit from their stories.
The stories depict the gods as idiots whose intellect is easily bested by humans or demi-gods... The stories have gods committing heinous crimes themselves or simply letting their pride and ego getting to their heads...
Now I will admit, there is one myth I have always been fond of, which is the myth of Icarus and that is because of its metaphoric strengths and how poetic the story is.
But I find that majority of Greek myths are just straight up random plots with little wisdom to gain for the effort you put in to understand the story...
What is so worthwhile about Greek myths that well educated and intellectuals admire? Give me examples to prove your point.
| 1,717,026,597
|
Elemental_Joker3649
|
l6949gu
|
l693ura
| 33
| 2
|
CMV: The best solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is a Bosnia style federal republic of Israel and Palestine
So to preface my post, this isn't about the most realistic solution, or what will actually happen, but the best possible outcome to the conflict.
I think that the best possible outcome to the current longstanding conflict would be a federal republic of Israel and Palestine, with an international tribunal (like the ICTY) held to prosecute crimes committed by anyone who committed them. What would this look like? Allow me to explain.
A federal republic of Israel and Palestine would look similar to what the federal republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina currently looks like. One country with two nations inside of it, each nation democratically self represented by members of said nation with it's own government, with a constitutional court composed of memebers of both, and seats in the legislature reserved and distributed equally to Palestinians and Israelis. Laws could be passed individually by each republic, Israel and Palestine, but there would be a constitution which would set some ground rules (Like for example no laws based in ethnic hatred, discriminatory laws, etc). The city of Jerusalem, as I see it, would be sort of like the Brcko district within BiH, and it would be an area populated by both Palestinians and Israelis, with a special status, due to respect for the significance of sites like the Wailing Wall and Al-Asqa within the city for both sides. It would be like a two state solution, but if we bound them together, forced them to at least tolerate one another, and set up a specific legal system in the country to prevent either of them from getting to the point where they are at right now in terms of radical hatred of the other. I understand this might sound kind of dumb to you, but consider, we already did this to a country of two different people while an active genocide was going on. If the actions of Israel are genocidal, and in my opinion they border on this, I do not see this as any bar for this to work.
Let me list some key points as to why I think this would be the best possible solution:
Both sides have committed atrocities which the other side will never forgive the other for. While the weight of the atrocities may be heavily skewed towards Israel (as it was skewed towards Serbs in the Yugoslav wars), the tribunals could attempt to placate both people who are mad about Oct 7, by prosecuting the Hamas commanders who were responsible for it for terrorism, and the people who are mad about Israel's genocidal rhetoric and actions within Gaza, by prosecuting people responsible for this for war crimes (Like Gallant and Netanyahu).
Both sides would have political autonomy, but certain very important things would be impossible for them. The one nation position of both Likud and Hamas would be explicitly not allowed by any potential political party in either region, because the constitution would enshrine the state's status as a federation of both. In Bosnia, the constitutional court has recently struck down resolutions passed by Republika Srpska denying Srebrenica. Similar enforcement could be had against denials of/celebrations of Israel's genocide, but also against denials of/celebrations of Oct 7. Further prosecutions could be had for all the range of grievances which both sides hold, from the rocket attacks, to the killing of Palestinian children in the west bank. Anything in the past 20 years is fair game, really, and it would be up to an international court to go through all the evidence in the coming years.
The status of Jerusalem. In any two state solution, dividing this city up is undesirable. It is a holy site in both Islam and Judaism, and if either side were to be deprived of this, I believe it would be unacceptable. This solution allows for both to maintain their access to it, without any utopian fantasies of them getting along anytime soon.
No more ethnic cleansing. I know many people want to support ideas like the right of return, but the fact is that the Israel Palestine borders have been around long enough that nobody still alive today is responsible for them. Expelling Jews to make room for Palestinians is an unacceptable solution to me (this does not include the illegal settlements in the west bank, the west bank settlers should absolutely be sent back to Israel proper). The borders would be drawn up as they currently stand (as internationally recognized), with the exception of Jerusalem as a city with special status. The wall around Gaza, however, would be dismantled, and Gazans would be free to transit between the West Bank and Gaza. No future displacements could be allowed to happen, and in reality both groups of people could live in either area, however they would have to respect the authority of the local government, which they wouldn't have a say in.
I understand this isn't a perfect solution. Nothing is. Republika Srpska, for example, still continues to elect genocide deniers and Serb nationalists, but their hands are tied, and war isn't going to break out anytime soon in Bosnia again. I believe that if such a project were to last for more than a few decades, reconciliation for the past 80 years of mostly just awful shit could actually be a reality, even more so than if Palestine achieved statehood.
|
>One country with two nations inside of it, each nation democratically self represented by members of said nation with it's own government, with a constitutional court composed of memebers of both, and seats in the legislature reserved and distributed equally to Palestinians and Israelis.
Israel doesn't even have a constitution now, how do you think one will be agreed upon if the Israelis and Palestinians are forced to create one together?
> Laws could be passed individually by each republic, Israel and Palestine, but there would be a constitution which would set some ground rules (Like for example no laws based in ethnic hatred, discriminatory laws, etc). The city of Jerusalem, as I see it, would be sort of like the Brcko district within BiH, and it would be an area populated by both Palestinians and Israelis, with a special status, due to respect for the significance of sites like the Wailing Wall and Al-Asqa within the city for both sides. It would be like a two state solution, but if we bound them together, forced them to at least tolerate one another, and set up a specific legal system in the country to prevent either of them from getting to the point where they are at right now in terms of radical hatred of the other. I understand this might sound kind of dumb to you, but consider, we already did this to a country of two different people while an active genocide was going on. If the actions of Israel are genocidal, and in my opinion they border on this, I do not see this as any bar for this to work.
Who's going to enforce this and prevent violence between each side?
>Both sides have committed atrocities which the other side will never forgive the other for. While the weight of the atrocities may be heavily skewed towards Israel (as it was skewed towards Serbs in the Yugoslav wars), the tribunals could attempt to placate both people who are mad about Oct 7, by prosecuting the Hamas commanders who were responsible for it for terrorism, and the people who are mad about Israel's genocidal rhetoric and actions within Gaza, by prosecuting people responsible for this for war crimes (Like Gallant and Netanyahu).
And if this tribunals find that Israeli officials haven't actually committed war crimes everyone is gonna be chill about that?
>Similar enforcement could be had against denials of/celebrations of Israel's genocide,
That's gonna be a hard sell since Israel isn't doing a genocide.
>Anything in the past 20 years is fair game, really, and it would be up to an international court to go through all the evidence in the coming years.
There are going to be a bunch of Palestinians mad about that.
>I understand this isn't a perfect solution.
It's not all that dissimilar from either the Peel Commission plan or the 1948 Partition plan, and both of those didn't work out. Which brings me to the point. There are so many poison pills in this plan that neither side will voluntarily agree to it. Which means you'll have to force them into it. And Israel has nuclear weapons so you won't be able to force them into anything.
|
Hey there, I get where you're coming from with the idea of a federal republic like Bosnia and Herzegovina as a solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, but tbh, I think it might be a bit more complicated than that. Firstly, Bosnia’s setup did kinda create a framework for peace, but it wasn't exactly a walk in the park, and the ethnic tensions still simmer under the surface. And comparing it to the Israel-Palestine scenario, which has whole different layers of historical and religious context, seems a bit of a stretch.
Also, you mentioned prosecuting people from both sides through an international tribunal. Sure, it sounds fair on paper, but idk, these tribunals often struggle with enforceability and impartiality. Plus, each side sees themselves as the primary victim, making “justice” subjective and really, really contentious. Just trying to imagine Netanyahu and Hamas leaders sitting in the same courtroom feels like it's from a dystopian novella or something. 😅
Jerusalem as a special status city? Ok, cool idea. But, realistically, the intense affiliation both sides have to every inch of the city might just make it a perpetual flashpoint rather than a shared utopia. It’s kinda like trying to split the last slice of pizza between two starving groups and hoping they’ll share nicely.
In short, while a federal republic sounds neat in theory, the ground realities might not be so cooperative. But hey, I'd love to be proven wrong and see peace prevail in any form possible.
|
1d3stgi
|
CMV: The best solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict is a Bosnia style federal republic of Israel and Palestine
|
So to preface my post, this isn't about the most realistic solution, or what will actually happen, but the best possible outcome to the conflict.
I think that the best possible outcome to the current longstanding conflict would be a federal republic of Israel and Palestine, with an international tribunal (like the ICTY) held to prosecute crimes committed by anyone who committed them. What would this look like? Allow me to explain.
A federal republic of Israel and Palestine would look similar to what the federal republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina currently looks like. One country with two nations inside of it, each nation democratically self represented by members of said nation with it's own government, with a constitutional court composed of memebers of both, and seats in the legislature reserved and distributed equally to Palestinians and Israelis. Laws could be passed individually by each republic, Israel and Palestine, but there would be a constitution which would set some ground rules (Like for example no laws based in ethnic hatred, discriminatory laws, etc). The city of Jerusalem, as I see it, would be sort of like the Brcko district within BiH, and it would be an area populated by both Palestinians and Israelis, with a special status, due to respect for the significance of sites like the Wailing Wall and Al-Asqa within the city for both sides. It would be like a two state solution, but if we bound them together, forced them to at least tolerate one another, and set up a specific legal system in the country to prevent either of them from getting to the point where they are at right now in terms of radical hatred of the other. I understand this might sound kind of dumb to you, but consider, we already did this to a country of two different people while an active genocide was going on. If the actions of Israel are genocidal, and in my opinion they border on this, I do not see this as any bar for this to work.
Let me list some key points as to why I think this would be the best possible solution:
Both sides have committed atrocities which the other side will never forgive the other for. While the weight of the atrocities may be heavily skewed towards Israel (as it was skewed towards Serbs in the Yugoslav wars), the tribunals could attempt to placate both people who are mad about Oct 7, by prosecuting the Hamas commanders who were responsible for it for terrorism, and the people who are mad about Israel's genocidal rhetoric and actions within Gaza, by prosecuting people responsible for this for war crimes (Like Gallant and Netanyahu).
Both sides would have political autonomy, but certain very important things would be impossible for them. The one nation position of both Likud and Hamas would be explicitly not allowed by any potential political party in either region, because the constitution would enshrine the state's status as a federation of both. In Bosnia, the constitutional court has recently struck down resolutions passed by Republika Srpska denying Srebrenica. Similar enforcement could be had against denials of/celebrations of Israel's genocide, but also against denials of/celebrations of Oct 7. Further prosecutions could be had for all the range of grievances which both sides hold, from the rocket attacks, to the killing of Palestinian children in the west bank. Anything in the past 20 years is fair game, really, and it would be up to an international court to go through all the evidence in the coming years.
The status of Jerusalem. In any two state solution, dividing this city up is undesirable. It is a holy site in both Islam and Judaism, and if either side were to be deprived of this, I believe it would be unacceptable. This solution allows for both to maintain their access to it, without any utopian fantasies of them getting along anytime soon.
No more ethnic cleansing. I know many people want to support ideas like the right of return, but the fact is that the Israel Palestine borders have been around long enough that nobody still alive today is responsible for them. Expelling Jews to make room for Palestinians is an unacceptable solution to me (this does not include the illegal settlements in the west bank, the west bank settlers should absolutely be sent back to Israel proper). The borders would be drawn up as they currently stand (as internationally recognized), with the exception of Jerusalem as a city with special status. The wall around Gaza, however, would be dismantled, and Gazans would be free to transit between the West Bank and Gaza. No future displacements could be allowed to happen, and in reality both groups of people could live in either area, however they would have to respect the authority of the local government, which they wouldn't have a say in.
I understand this isn't a perfect solution. Nothing is. Republika Srpska, for example, still continues to elect genocide deniers and Serb nationalists, but their hands are tied, and war isn't going to break out anytime soon in Bosnia again. I believe that if such a project were to last for more than a few decades, reconciliation for the past 80 years of mostly just awful shit could actually be a reality, even more so than if Palestine achieved statehood.
| 1,717,034,076
|
Most-Travel4320
|
l69q5to
|
l69lwsi
| 8
| 2
|
CMV: Antisemitism being equated to anti-zionism is racist ideology.
I just want to start this off by saying my judgment of Israel comes from the general harm caused to Isrealis, Palestinians , and anyone else caught in crossfire. I understand antisemitism has been and can promotes racism, violence, and political extremists.
1. White nationalism is still running wild, there is a reason people were casually throwing the word Nazi at alt-right extremists. A lot of Americans simply equate a terrorist group as a representation of an entire country. Taliban, Hamas, 9/11, Oct. 7th are often used to explain Islam is inherently violent religion when the reality is that all religions can be used justify violence. Muslims are quickly labeled as terrorists the same way Christians usd to be referred to as a crusade.
2. Israel has mandatory draft for IDF unless that citizen practices Haredi Judaism & aid in teaching Hebrew and the Torah. Drafting has unfortunately lead to Israel being more of theocracy rather than democracy that respect Orthodox & Haredi Judaism. I am able to hold empathy for Israelis while also expressing contempt for theocracy and religious wars.
3. Solely sourcing religion as something that can’t be racist is typically the rhetoric used by said religious racists. Regardless if Hamas is fully condemned, there has been quite a lot of Middle Eastern jihadists that use religion to politicize very violent situations. Antisemitism existed before Israel and will continue to unless we start differiating religious and racist bias before expressing political opinions.
|
!
Yeah you are right, I am about to take it down because half the people arguing for zionism are actually helping create antisemitic dialogue-which by all means I did not post this to bat signal the crazies lmao. Thank you for thoughtful response.
I am anti-white nationalism I suppose; atleast in context of American history. It’s veryyy telling if the same people who allowed KKK the right to free speech are condemning college kids trying to peacefully protest.
|
Antizionism is antisemitism. This is a fact.
|
1d3t1zv
|
CMV: Antisemitism being equated to anti-zionism is racist ideology.
|
I just want to start this off by saying my judgment of Israel comes from the general harm caused to Isrealis, Palestinians , and anyone else caught in crossfire. I understand antisemitism has been and can promotes racism, violence, and political extremists.
1. White nationalism is still running wild, there is a reason people were casually throwing the word Nazi at alt-right extremists. A lot of Americans simply equate a terrorist group as a representation of an entire country. Taliban, Hamas, 9/11, Oct. 7th are often used to explain Islam is inherently violent religion when the reality is that all religions can be used justify violence. Muslims are quickly labeled as terrorists the same way Christians usd to be referred to as a crusade.
2. Israel has mandatory draft for IDF unless that citizen practices Haredi Judaism & aid in teaching Hebrew and the Torah. Drafting has unfortunately lead to Israel being more of theocracy rather than democracy that respect Orthodox & Haredi Judaism. I am able to hold empathy for Israelis while also expressing contempt for theocracy and religious wars.
3. Solely sourcing religion as something that can’t be racist is typically the rhetoric used by said religious racists. Regardless if Hamas is fully condemned, there has been quite a lot of Middle Eastern jihadists that use religion to politicize very violent situations. Antisemitism existed before Israel and will continue to unless we start differiating religious and racist bias before expressing political opinions.
| 1,717,034,810
|
PickNo2380
|
l6a157k
|
l69poex
| -3
| -8
|
CMV: Jealousy arise in romantic relationships because of institution of marriage. The institution of marriage contributed to this phenomenon throughout history.
Jealousy is one of the most prevalent areas of psychological ignorance about yourself, about others and more particularly, about relationship.
People think they know what love is - they do not know. And their misunderstanding about love creates jealousy. By 'love' people mean a certain kind of monopoly, some possessiveness - without understanding a simple fact of life: that the moment you possess a living being you have killed him.
Life cannot be possessed. You cannot have it in your fist. If you want to have it, you have to keep your hands open.
But the thing has been going on a wrong path for centuries; it has become ingrained in us so much that we cannot separate love from jealousy. They have become almost one energy.
For example, you feel jealous if your lover goes to another woman. You are disturbed by it now, but I would like to tell you that if you don't feel jealous you will be in much more trouble - then you will think you don't love him, because if you loved him you should have felt jealous. Jealousy and love have become so mixed up.
In fact, they are poles apart. A mind that can be jealous cannot be loving, and vice-versa: a mind that is loving cannot be jealous.
What is the disturbance? You have to look it as if it is not your question - somebody else has asked, it is somebody else's problem - so that you can stand aside and see the whole fabric.
The feeling of jealousy is a byproduct of marriage.
In the world of animals, birds, there is no jealousy. Once in a while there is a fight over a love object but a fight is far better than to be jealous, far more natural than to be caught up in jealousy and burn your heart with your own hands.
Marriage is an invented institution, it is not natural; hence nature has not provided a mind that can adjust to marriage. But man found it necessary that there should be some kind of legal contract between lovers, because love itself is dream-stuff, it is not reliable... it is there this moment and the next moment it is gone.
You want to be secure for the coming moment, for your whole future. Right now you are young; soon you will be old and you would like your wife, your husband, to be with you in your old age, in your sickness. But for that, a few compromises have to be made, and whenever there is compromise there is always trouble.
This is the compromise that human beings have made: to be secure about the future, to be certain about the tomorrows, to have a guarantee that the woman who loves you is going to love you forever, that it is not a temporary affair....
That's why religious people say that marriages are "made in heaven" ... a strange kind of heaven, because if these marriages are made in heaven, then what can you make in hell? They don't show the signs, the fragrance, the freshness, the beauty of heaven. They are certainly disgusting, ugly...
they show something of hell certainly. But man settled for marriage because that was the only way to have private property.
Animals don't have private property - they are all communists, and far better communists than have appeared in human history. They don't have any dictatorship of the proletariat and they have not lost their freedom, but they don't have any private property.
Man also lived for thousands of years without marriage, but those were the days when there was no private property. Those were the days of hunting; man was a hunter. And those people thousands of years ago had no cold-storage system, no technology - whatever food they got they had to finish as quickly as possible. They could only hope that tomorrow they will get some food again.
Because there was nothing to accumulate, there was no question of marriage. People lived in communes, tribes; people loved, people reproduced, but in the beginning there was no word for 'father'. The word 'mother' is far more ancient and far more natural. You will be surprised to know that the word 'uncle' is older than the word 'father' - because all the people who were the age of your father... you didn't know who your father was. Men and women were mixing joyously - without any compulsion, without any legal bondage, out of their free will. If they wanted to meet and be together there was no question of domination. The children never knew who their father was, they knew only their mother. And they knew many men in the tribe; someone amongst those men must have been their father, hence they were all uncles.
As private property came into existence with cultivation.... With hunting, man could not survive long. People have destroyed complete species of animals. Hundreds of species which once used to dance and sing on this earth... man has eaten them up. Something had to be done because hunting was not reliable. Today you may get food, tomorrow you may have to be hungry. And it was very arduous. The search for animals did not allow man to develop any of his other talents, his genius.
But cultivation changed the whole life of man.
You must be reminded of the fact that cultivation is the discovery of women, not of men. The woman was confined - she was not able to go hunting. Most of the time she was pregnant, she was weak, she was carrying another soul within her. She needed care, protection... so she was living in the house. She started making the living space more beautiful - and this you can see even today, after thousands of years.
If you enter into a bachelor's room you can immediately say that it is a bachelor's room. You may not be able to decide by seeing the bachelor whether he is bachelor or not, but his room certainly is a bachelor! The woman, her touch, is missing. The house of a bachelor is never a home, it is just a place where he sleeps. It is not something with which he feels a certain intimacy, a certain creative relationship.
The home, the village, the city and the whole civilization are because of the woman, because she was free from hunting and she had different values of the heart and of the mind - she was more aesthetic, more graceful, more earthly, not at all interested in hell and heaven and God and the devil and all that crap! No woman has written a single religious scripture. No woman has been a philosopher thinking about abstract, faraway things.
Woman's consciousness is interested only in the intimate surroundings - she would like a beautiful house, she would like a beautiful garden. She wants to create a small world of her own - cozy, comfortable. She imparts a certain quality to a dead house and it becomes a living home. It is a magical transformation.
Man continued to hunt, and the woman started looking around... the man had no time. He has always been busy without business, but the woman had all the time there is. The basic work of hunting was being done by the groups of men and the woman started looking around. She discovered cultivation because she saw wild fruits growing, she saw many other things growing and she also saw that every year the crop dies, the seeds fall back into the earth and when the rains come, again those seeds sprout in thousands of plants. She started experimenting to find what was edible and what was not edible. Soon, as hunting was becoming more and more difficult, men had to agree with women: "We have to shift our whole economic focus. We have to go for cultivation, for fruits, for vegetables. And these are in our hands - we can produce as much as we want, as we need it, and there is tremendous variety."
Slowly, slowly the nomads, the wandering tribes... because hunters cannot stay in one place. They have to go on moving as the animals escape. Once hunting was dropped and cultivation became our very measure of survival a new thing also happened alongside.
There were people who were powerful people and there were people who were weak people. The people who were physically powerful managed to claim much ground as their property. They earned much... slowly, slowly the barter system started, because when you have too much of one crop, what are you going to do with it? You have to exchange it; then you can have many more things.
Life became more complex, with more excitement.
But a problem was felt: after a person dies, who is going to inherit his property? Nobody wanted their property to be inherited by any XYZ. They wanted their property to belong to their own blood.
It is out of economics, not out of the understanding of love that marriage came into existence. Its very birth was wrong, under the wrong stars.
And because man had to agree for marriage.... The woman was very willing for the simple reason that for thousands of years in the hunting period she was not financially a part of the society; man was all. Man continued his power, although the whole social structure changed. The hunter's nomadic life became a peaceful life in a village but man's concern about his property.... He wanted a contract with the woman to be certain that the son she was giving birth to is not somebody else's, but his own. For this simple purpose all the woman's freedom had to be destroyed. She had to live almost like a prisoner, or worse.
Man agreed - under compulsion, he compromised. If the woman was losing a few things - her freedom of movement, her freedom in changing lovers - man was also ready to sacrifice his freedom. They would remain devoted to each other forever.
But it is against nature. Even if you want to do it nature is not going to support you.
Nature is for freedom, not for any kind of bondage.
So new problems started arising. Men started finding prostitutes who were no-one's wives. She belongs to anybody, she is a commodity; you have to pay and buy her time and her body. Because of marriage it was very difficult to find married women because then there were more complexities: they had their husbands.... Prostitutes were good.
Marriage created suspicion. The husband was always suspicious about whether the child born to them was his own or not. And the problem is, the father had no way to determine that a child was his own. Only the mother knew. Because the father had no way of being certain, he created more and more walls around the woman - that was the only possibility, the only alternative - to disconnect her from the larger humanity. Not to educate her, because education gives wings to people, thoughts, makes people capable of revolt, so no education for women. No religious education for women, because religion makes you saints, holy people and it has been a male-dominated society for centuries and man cannot conceive a woman to be higher and holier than himself.
Man has been cutting from the very roots any possibility of woman's growth. She is just a factory to manufacture children. She has not been accepted by any culture in the world as equal to man.
There are even cultures like the Chinese which have denied the soul to woman; woman is only a machine, without a soul.
In China you could kill your wife, no law existed against it. The wife was your possession and if you wanted to destroy it, it was nobody's business to prevent it.
All over the world the woman has been suppressed. The more she has been suppressed, the more her whole energy has turned sour. And because she has no freedom and man has every freedom, all her repressed emotions, feelings, thoughts - her whole individuality turns into a jealous phenomenon. She is continuously afraid that her husband might leave her, might go to some other woman, might become interested in some other woman. He might abandon her, and she has problems: she is not educated, she is not financially capable of standing on her own feet. She has been brought up in such a way that she cannot go into the world; she has been told from the very beginning that she is weak....
Indian scriptures say that in childhood the father should protect the girl; in youth the husband should protect the girl; in old age the son should protect the woman. She has to be protected from the very childhood to the grave. She cannot revolt against this male chauvinist society. All she can do is go on finding faults, which are bound to be there. Mostly she is not wrong; she is mostly right.
Whenever a man falls in love with another woman something in him towards the first woman changes. Now they are again strangers, there is no bridge. She has been crippled, enslaved and now she has been abandoned. Her whole life is a life of agony.
Out of this agony arises jealousy. Jealousy is the anger of the weak - one who cannot do anything but is boiling within, who would like to burn the whole world but cannot do anything except cry and scream and throw tantrums.
This situation will continue until marriage becomes a museum piece.
Now there is no need for marriage. Perhaps it was useful. Perhaps it was not useful, but it was only an excuse to enslave the woman. Things could have been worked out in a different way, but there is no point in going into the past.
Right or wrong, one thing is good about the past: it is no more.
As far as the present and the future are concerned, marriage is absolutely irrelevant, inconsistent with human evolution and contradictory to all the values we love - freedom, love, joy.
Because man wanted the woman to be completely imprisoned, he wrote religious scriptures making her afraid of hell, making her greedy for heaven... IF she follows the rules. Those rules exist only for women, not for men. Now it is so clear that to let women live any longer in this poisonous situation of jealousy is against their psychological health.
And women's psychological health influences the pyschological health of the whole of humanity - man is also born of woman. The woman has to become an independent individual.
The dissolution of marriage will be a great, festive event on the earth - and nobody is preventing you: if you love your wife or your husband you can live for lives together, nobody is preventing you.
Withdrawing marriage is simply giving you your individuality back. Now nobody possesses you.
|
>The feeling of jealousy is a byproduct of marriage.
>In the world of animals, birds, there is no jealousy
It exists without marriage, unrelated to marriage, and of course there is. Never had dogs? Cats? Birds? They get jealous.
I didn't read all that but I saw this while scrolling --
>You must be reminded of the fact that cultivation is the discovery of women, not of men. The woman was confined - she was not able to go hunting. Most of the time she was pregnant, she was weak, she was carrying another soul within her. She needed care, protection... so she was living in the house. She started making the living space more beautiful - and this you can see even today, after thousands of years.
And it is complete and utter bullshit. Where did you get these ideas??
Women hunted, first of all. Women are perfectly able to hunt -- they were likely better at it -- and if you think pregnant women are weak you've never met one.
And you think women somehow naturally want to... decorate? Come ON.
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/women-hunted-often-prehistory-men-b2451528.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/women-hunted-often-prehistory-men-b2451528.html)
|
This kind of reminds me of racism in America. Blaming racism for the division of mankind. When really it is simply a byproduct of our natural jealousy and insecurity. Same with marriage and monogamy. I’ve never once been married but I’ve been with plenty of women I had to leave based off of jealousy.
We are simply really horny land mammals. We will always divide from one another for whatever convenient reasons. We will always be greedy, always be insecure, and always be jealous. Jealous of wealth, opportunity, passion, nationality, skin tone, hair texture, who our loved ones love or yearn for.
Our ancestors, for 1,000’s of years of first humans would literally commit infanticide because women would pay too much attention to the baby instead of being available to be fucked. I cannot stress that marriage is simply a byproduct of our natural jealousy. For which it had to be created in the first place.
|
1d3up05
|
CMV: Jealousy arise in romantic relationships because of institution of marriage. The institution of marriage contributed to this phenomenon throughout history.
|
Jealousy is one of the most prevalent areas of psychological ignorance about yourself, about others and more particularly, about relationship.
People think they know what love is - they do not know. And their misunderstanding about love creates jealousy. By 'love' people mean a certain kind of monopoly, some possessiveness - without understanding a simple fact of life: that the moment you possess a living being you have killed him.
Life cannot be possessed. You cannot have it in your fist. If you want to have it, you have to keep your hands open.
But the thing has been going on a wrong path for centuries; it has become ingrained in us so much that we cannot separate love from jealousy. They have become almost one energy.
For example, you feel jealous if your lover goes to another woman. You are disturbed by it now, but I would like to tell you that if you don't feel jealous you will be in much more trouble - then you will think you don't love him, because if you loved him you should have felt jealous. Jealousy and love have become so mixed up.
In fact, they are poles apart. A mind that can be jealous cannot be loving, and vice-versa: a mind that is loving cannot be jealous.
What is the disturbance? You have to look it as if it is not your question - somebody else has asked, it is somebody else's problem - so that you can stand aside and see the whole fabric.
The feeling of jealousy is a byproduct of marriage.
In the world of animals, birds, there is no jealousy. Once in a while there is a fight over a love object but a fight is far better than to be jealous, far more natural than to be caught up in jealousy and burn your heart with your own hands.
Marriage is an invented institution, it is not natural; hence nature has not provided a mind that can adjust to marriage. But man found it necessary that there should be some kind of legal contract between lovers, because love itself is dream-stuff, it is not reliable... it is there this moment and the next moment it is gone.
You want to be secure for the coming moment, for your whole future. Right now you are young; soon you will be old and you would like your wife, your husband, to be with you in your old age, in your sickness. But for that, a few compromises have to be made, and whenever there is compromise there is always trouble.
This is the compromise that human beings have made: to be secure about the future, to be certain about the tomorrows, to have a guarantee that the woman who loves you is going to love you forever, that it is not a temporary affair....
That's why religious people say that marriages are "made in heaven" ... a strange kind of heaven, because if these marriages are made in heaven, then what can you make in hell? They don't show the signs, the fragrance, the freshness, the beauty of heaven. They are certainly disgusting, ugly...
they show something of hell certainly. But man settled for marriage because that was the only way to have private property.
Animals don't have private property - they are all communists, and far better communists than have appeared in human history. They don't have any dictatorship of the proletariat and they have not lost their freedom, but they don't have any private property.
Man also lived for thousands of years without marriage, but those were the days when there was no private property. Those were the days of hunting; man was a hunter. And those people thousands of years ago had no cold-storage system, no technology - whatever food they got they had to finish as quickly as possible. They could only hope that tomorrow they will get some food again.
Because there was nothing to accumulate, there was no question of marriage. People lived in communes, tribes; people loved, people reproduced, but in the beginning there was no word for 'father'. The word 'mother' is far more ancient and far more natural. You will be surprised to know that the word 'uncle' is older than the word 'father' - because all the people who were the age of your father... you didn't know who your father was. Men and women were mixing joyously - without any compulsion, without any legal bondage, out of their free will. If they wanted to meet and be together there was no question of domination. The children never knew who their father was, they knew only their mother. And they knew many men in the tribe; someone amongst those men must have been their father, hence they were all uncles.
As private property came into existence with cultivation.... With hunting, man could not survive long. People have destroyed complete species of animals. Hundreds of species which once used to dance and sing on this earth... man has eaten them up. Something had to be done because hunting was not reliable. Today you may get food, tomorrow you may have to be hungry. And it was very arduous. The search for animals did not allow man to develop any of his other talents, his genius.
But cultivation changed the whole life of man.
You must be reminded of the fact that cultivation is the discovery of women, not of men. The woman was confined - she was not able to go hunting. Most of the time she was pregnant, she was weak, she was carrying another soul within her. She needed care, protection... so she was living in the house. She started making the living space more beautiful - and this you can see even today, after thousands of years.
If you enter into a bachelor's room you can immediately say that it is a bachelor's room. You may not be able to decide by seeing the bachelor whether he is bachelor or not, but his room certainly is a bachelor! The woman, her touch, is missing. The house of a bachelor is never a home, it is just a place where he sleeps. It is not something with which he feels a certain intimacy, a certain creative relationship.
The home, the village, the city and the whole civilization are because of the woman, because she was free from hunting and she had different values of the heart and of the mind - she was more aesthetic, more graceful, more earthly, not at all interested in hell and heaven and God and the devil and all that crap! No woman has written a single religious scripture. No woman has been a philosopher thinking about abstract, faraway things.
Woman's consciousness is interested only in the intimate surroundings - she would like a beautiful house, she would like a beautiful garden. She wants to create a small world of her own - cozy, comfortable. She imparts a certain quality to a dead house and it becomes a living home. It is a magical transformation.
Man continued to hunt, and the woman started looking around... the man had no time. He has always been busy without business, but the woman had all the time there is. The basic work of hunting was being done by the groups of men and the woman started looking around. She discovered cultivation because she saw wild fruits growing, she saw many other things growing and she also saw that every year the crop dies, the seeds fall back into the earth and when the rains come, again those seeds sprout in thousands of plants. She started experimenting to find what was edible and what was not edible. Soon, as hunting was becoming more and more difficult, men had to agree with women: "We have to shift our whole economic focus. We have to go for cultivation, for fruits, for vegetables. And these are in our hands - we can produce as much as we want, as we need it, and there is tremendous variety."
Slowly, slowly the nomads, the wandering tribes... because hunters cannot stay in one place. They have to go on moving as the animals escape. Once hunting was dropped and cultivation became our very measure of survival a new thing also happened alongside.
There were people who were powerful people and there were people who were weak people. The people who were physically powerful managed to claim much ground as their property. They earned much... slowly, slowly the barter system started, because when you have too much of one crop, what are you going to do with it? You have to exchange it; then you can have many more things.
Life became more complex, with more excitement.
But a problem was felt: after a person dies, who is going to inherit his property? Nobody wanted their property to be inherited by any XYZ. They wanted their property to belong to their own blood.
It is out of economics, not out of the understanding of love that marriage came into existence. Its very birth was wrong, under the wrong stars.
And because man had to agree for marriage.... The woman was very willing for the simple reason that for thousands of years in the hunting period she was not financially a part of the society; man was all. Man continued his power, although the whole social structure changed. The hunter's nomadic life became a peaceful life in a village but man's concern about his property.... He wanted a contract with the woman to be certain that the son she was giving birth to is not somebody else's, but his own. For this simple purpose all the woman's freedom had to be destroyed. She had to live almost like a prisoner, or worse.
Man agreed - under compulsion, he compromised. If the woman was losing a few things - her freedom of movement, her freedom in changing lovers - man was also ready to sacrifice his freedom. They would remain devoted to each other forever.
But it is against nature. Even if you want to do it nature is not going to support you.
Nature is for freedom, not for any kind of bondage.
So new problems started arising. Men started finding prostitutes who were no-one's wives. She belongs to anybody, she is a commodity; you have to pay and buy her time and her body. Because of marriage it was very difficult to find married women because then there were more complexities: they had their husbands.... Prostitutes were good.
Marriage created suspicion. The husband was always suspicious about whether the child born to them was his own or not. And the problem is, the father had no way to determine that a child was his own. Only the mother knew. Because the father had no way of being certain, he created more and more walls around the woman - that was the only possibility, the only alternative - to disconnect her from the larger humanity. Not to educate her, because education gives wings to people, thoughts, makes people capable of revolt, so no education for women. No religious education for women, because religion makes you saints, holy people and it has been a male-dominated society for centuries and man cannot conceive a woman to be higher and holier than himself.
Man has been cutting from the very roots any possibility of woman's growth. She is just a factory to manufacture children. She has not been accepted by any culture in the world as equal to man.
There are even cultures like the Chinese which have denied the soul to woman; woman is only a machine, without a soul.
In China you could kill your wife, no law existed against it. The wife was your possession and if you wanted to destroy it, it was nobody's business to prevent it.
All over the world the woman has been suppressed. The more she has been suppressed, the more her whole energy has turned sour. And because she has no freedom and man has every freedom, all her repressed emotions, feelings, thoughts - her whole individuality turns into a jealous phenomenon. She is continuously afraid that her husband might leave her, might go to some other woman, might become interested in some other woman. He might abandon her, and she has problems: she is not educated, she is not financially capable of standing on her own feet. She has been brought up in such a way that she cannot go into the world; she has been told from the very beginning that she is weak....
Indian scriptures say that in childhood the father should protect the girl; in youth the husband should protect the girl; in old age the son should protect the woman. She has to be protected from the very childhood to the grave. She cannot revolt against this male chauvinist society. All she can do is go on finding faults, which are bound to be there. Mostly she is not wrong; she is mostly right.
Whenever a man falls in love with another woman something in him towards the first woman changes. Now they are again strangers, there is no bridge. She has been crippled, enslaved and now she has been abandoned. Her whole life is a life of agony.
Out of this agony arises jealousy. Jealousy is the anger of the weak - one who cannot do anything but is boiling within, who would like to burn the whole world but cannot do anything except cry and scream and throw tantrums.
This situation will continue until marriage becomes a museum piece.
Now there is no need for marriage. Perhaps it was useful. Perhaps it was not useful, but it was only an excuse to enslave the woman. Things could have been worked out in a different way, but there is no point in going into the past.
Right or wrong, one thing is good about the past: it is no more.
As far as the present and the future are concerned, marriage is absolutely irrelevant, inconsistent with human evolution and contradictory to all the values we love - freedom, love, joy.
Because man wanted the woman to be completely imprisoned, he wrote religious scriptures making her afraid of hell, making her greedy for heaven... IF she follows the rules. Those rules exist only for women, not for men. Now it is so clear that to let women live any longer in this poisonous situation of jealousy is against their psychological health.
And women's psychological health influences the pyschological health of the whole of humanity - man is also born of woman. The woman has to become an independent individual.
The dissolution of marriage will be a great, festive event on the earth - and nobody is preventing you: if you love your wife or your husband you can live for lives together, nobody is preventing you.
Withdrawing marriage is simply giving you your individuality back. Now nobody possesses you.
| 1,717,039,965
|
Suspicious_Ferret109
|
l6a7z7u
|
l6a04ap
| 8
| 4
|
CMV: It's not right that people selectively care and talk about Gaza but not the Uyghurs, Ukraine or other conflicts
On social media and everywhere people are constantly outraged and demand action regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
That is perfectly understandable but what I don't think is right is that those people care so much about Gaza but don't seem to ever say anything about the Uyghur internment camps in China or even about Russia killing civilians in Ukraine (estimated 10,582+ killed). Even if it's true that some people do care about all these conflicts you can't deny that the vast majority have just posted things about Gaza and not mentioned the other conflicts.
Before the replies mention that the conflicts are different, yes they are slightly different but if you read about them in detail you'll see that one really can't argue that what's happening there is "better" than in Gaza.
I believe the reason for why many people selectively care about Gaza is because of the 'colonial'/'oppression' narrative. But why not also post about Uyghurs? Is it just because China doesn't actually provide any information or journalist access? It seems strange that a county that prohibits journalists from entering and reporting on what's happening is better off. And Ukraine-Russia is documented and the number of civillians kileld by Russia is too yet there were no college campus protests about that, or at least very insignificant ones if there were.
|
There was collective outrage for all these things, but just like Gaza in 2014 the hype dies down and everyone moves onto something else.
I've never seen such an outpour of support as I saw for Ukraine, but it's just old news now.
When Iraq happened there was a massive protest movement, and this was before the age of social media. Remember "Find Kony" in 2012? I also remember everyone widely condemning Turkey for the invasion of Northern Syria and their treatment of and aggression towards Kurds. There was also a movement to boycott products from China due to the Uyghur situation.
There was campus protests for apartheid, civil rights, Vietnam, etc. Bernie Sanders was even arrested at one.
There is another aspect to this though that is somewhat unique to the Gaza situation, there is a MASSIVE counter-discourse from pro-Israel people that you didn't really get for anything else. Like it's rare to find someone who endorses the Uyghur genocide, or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc. The last time I actually remember seeing a meaningful counter-discourse was for Iraq/Afghanistan.
The intense counter-discourse from the "pro-Israel" side 100% exacerbates the issue and just makes the "pro-Palestine" side louder and more invested.
|
Yeah its hard to argue, there are pretty huge differences in coverage between these issues. I know its really easy to blame the media, I mean that's what I just did but I think what a lot of media outlets are desperate for are views and so its also hard to discount what naturally draws us in attention wise.
One of my theories for why that is the case has to do with the narrative of the conflict. It crosses a huge amount of time and over events that we are very familiar with. All the way back to the bible, Jesus Christ, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, then through both the World Wars especially what happened to the Jews during WWII. It has connections to the Cold War, the UK, Soviet Russia, Egypt, Iraq Syria, Hamas, etc, etc. So for a lot of people I think it can even be exciting to be able to understand all of these big topics we've heard about all our lives, put them together in a meaningful way and then even form our own opinions about them and feel somewhat of a connection to all of it.
|
1d42au6
|
CMV: It's not right that people selectively care and talk about Gaza but not the Uyghurs, Ukraine or other conflicts
|
On social media and everywhere people are constantly outraged and demand action regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
That is perfectly understandable but what I don't think is right is that those people care so much about Gaza but don't seem to ever say anything about the Uyghur internment camps in China or even about Russia killing civilians in Ukraine (estimated 10,582+ killed). Even if it's true that some people do care about all these conflicts you can't deny that the vast majority have just posted things about Gaza and not mentioned the other conflicts.
Before the replies mention that the conflicts are different, yes they are slightly different but if you read about them in detail you'll see that one really can't argue that what's happening there is "better" than in Gaza.
I believe the reason for why many people selectively care about Gaza is because of the 'colonial'/'oppression' narrative. But why not also post about Uyghurs? Is it just because China doesn't actually provide any information or journalist access? It seems strange that a county that prohibits journalists from entering and reporting on what's happening is better off. And Ukraine-Russia is documented and the number of civillians kileld by Russia is too yet there were no college campus protests about that, or at least very insignificant ones if there were.
| 1,717,070,378
|
macnfly23
|
l6bep4j
|
l6bcvy3
| 593
| 4
|
CMV: Body positivity and body diversity is a "cope" for people who are unhealthy. It has no value beyond that.
I came across this [music video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5-c_v4gMU) and in case you've been living under a rock and you aren't familiar with Asian Pop, you'll notice this video has a certain kind of aesthetic, and the women have a certain kind of appearance and vibe: young, long hair, slender, doe-eyed, beautiful, smiling, playful, with a strong undercurrent of sexuality.
As far as I'm aware, this is the standard for pretty much all of CPOP, JPOP, KPOP...with little variation.
Meanwhile, in the west, while we still have a lot of this kind of thing, it seems that some in the culture are *trying* to promote "body positivity" and "body diversity". But aside from making these women feel **complacent** with being unhealthy, I'm not sure what the value is. I use that word complacent very intentionally, because I think that's why body positivity is not a good thing. One should not be comfortable being unhealthy, and in fact it is not comfortable to be unhealthy. Obesity has many medical problems associated with it.
People in the west like to talk about body positivity and body shaming like these are good and bad things, respectively. But sometimes shame has value. Going back to Asian Pop, these countries are cultures which have a culture of shame. This has its downsides, of course, but it also has benefits.
One of those benefits is physical health. If someone is obese in a culture of shame, people will make sure they know it. And this will usually shame people into being healthier. I see this as a very good thing.
Meanwhile, in the west, we have this sort of delusion that it's okay to be obese and if someone isn't attracted to you because of it, this is a failing on *their* part. As if their natural inclination towards the kind of uniform beauty we see in Asian Pop girl groups is arbitrary. There's a reason why there aren't any obese members of Asian Pop groups - it's not attractive, to anyone. (Or hardly anyone, unusual kinks exist I guess)
It makes me think of the admittedly short-lived controversy when [Adele slimmed down](https://www.newsweek.com/adele-reveals-backlash-weight-loss-says-some-fans-felt-betrayed-1721442) and women were upset about this for some reason. I remember thinking this was a very strange event. It's kind of like the crabs in the bucket metaphor - Adele achieved this great thing by becoming healthy, and her fans (who are obese, I presume) were unhappy about this. As if her obesity was some inspiring part of her persona, rather than an incidental thing - that is, she was *so* talented, that it didn't matter if she was obese.
You would think this would inspire her fans to also become healthy, but instead they just seemed to lash out at her. And I was really disgusted by this.
So in my view the west has a big problem with encouraging complacency in being unhealthy.
But clearly a lot of people seem to find value in "body positivity" and "body diversity". What is the value? Change my view.
|
You do realize that plastic surgery culture is huge over there. These Asian women are starving/mutilating themselves to get the " desired" look. If they do anything " wrong" they are easily replaced.
It's just as toxic and unhealthy as making a 400 lb women swimsuit model of the year.
|
also, body positivity isnt only for bigger people, its for skinnier people too. it just promotes loving yourself and your body, and i agree it can get out of hand but mostly its harmless and uplifting to people who may have been told their entire lives that they look shit and worthless
|
1d456b2
|
CMV: Body positivity and body diversity is a "cope" for people who are unhealthy. It has no value beyond that.
|
I came across this [music video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5-c_v4gMU) and in case you've been living under a rock and you aren't familiar with Asian Pop, you'll notice this video has a certain kind of aesthetic, and the women have a certain kind of appearance and vibe: young, long hair, slender, doe-eyed, beautiful, smiling, playful, with a strong undercurrent of sexuality.
As far as I'm aware, this is the standard for pretty much all of CPOP, JPOP, KPOP...with little variation.
Meanwhile, in the west, while we still have a lot of this kind of thing, it seems that some in the culture are *trying* to promote "body positivity" and "body diversity". But aside from making these women feel **complacent** with being unhealthy, I'm not sure what the value is. I use that word complacent very intentionally, because I think that's why body positivity is not a good thing. One should not be comfortable being unhealthy, and in fact it is not comfortable to be unhealthy. Obesity has many medical problems associated with it.
People in the west like to talk about body positivity and body shaming like these are good and bad things, respectively. But sometimes shame has value. Going back to Asian Pop, these countries are cultures which have a culture of shame. This has its downsides, of course, but it also has benefits.
One of those benefits is physical health. If someone is obese in a culture of shame, people will make sure they know it. And this will usually shame people into being healthier. I see this as a very good thing.
Meanwhile, in the west, we have this sort of delusion that it's okay to be obese and if someone isn't attracted to you because of it, this is a failing on *their* part. As if their natural inclination towards the kind of uniform beauty we see in Asian Pop girl groups is arbitrary. There's a reason why there aren't any obese members of Asian Pop groups - it's not attractive, to anyone. (Or hardly anyone, unusual kinks exist I guess)
It makes me think of the admittedly short-lived controversy when [Adele slimmed down](https://www.newsweek.com/adele-reveals-backlash-weight-loss-says-some-fans-felt-betrayed-1721442) and women were upset about this for some reason. I remember thinking this was a very strange event. It's kind of like the crabs in the bucket metaphor - Adele achieved this great thing by becoming healthy, and her fans (who are obese, I presume) were unhappy about this. As if her obesity was some inspiring part of her persona, rather than an incidental thing - that is, she was *so* talented, that it didn't matter if she was obese.
You would think this would inspire her fans to also become healthy, but instead they just seemed to lash out at her. And I was really disgusted by this.
So in my view the west has a big problem with encouraging complacency in being unhealthy.
But clearly a lot of people seem to find value in "body positivity" and "body diversity". What is the value? Change my view.
| 1,717,078,778
|
HelpfulJello5361
|
l6bzjiw
|
l6by90e
| 104
| 2
|
CMV: I believe a small but significant minority of immature, irresponsible, stupid teens ruin it for the rest of teens
For example many say to teens wait until you are 18 for tattoos, etc. Even though of course a small minority are quite irresponsible, I know many teens who are… more responsible. They have their designs and whatnot and seem to be able to plan ahead quite far. While this is not conclusive evidence, and I agree this argument is not strong, frankly teens in general are not that immature. Rather, a small amount of very immature teens ruin it for the rest of us.
Sure, many of us do risky things. But the behaviors in many of their situations are normal. For example it’s quite normal for a teen to enjoy drinking with their older peers. You could say they could be harassed or pressured. But you don’t live life in a bubble
It would be very boring to live life in a bubble thinking people will harm you. Personally I am fine with dating older muscular men. Sure some are violent but y’know I give them a chance as a teen myself
At least many adults understand this and don’t really care about underage drinking or underage weed use. They respect teens’ freedoms, at least.
|
im a teen rn but i dont think id really trust myself w any important life decisions. i look to when i was 13 literally 2 years ago and fucking cringe at how stupid i am, so i imagine itll be the same when im older looking to when i was 15
|
So I'll go ahead and say 18 is too young.
Your brain isn't fully formed until you're 26, which is why it's so bad to drink and smoke weed when you're younger- it causes permanent brain damage.
Walk me through why I should trust someone who doesn't have a fully formed brain to make good decisions?
|
1d45twn
|
CMV: I believe a small but significant minority of immature, irresponsible, stupid teens ruin it for the rest of teens
|
For example many say to teens wait until you are 18 for tattoos, etc. Even though of course a small minority are quite irresponsible, I know many teens who are… more responsible. They have their designs and whatnot and seem to be able to plan ahead quite far. While this is not conclusive evidence, and I agree this argument is not strong, frankly teens in general are not that immature. Rather, a small amount of very immature teens ruin it for the rest of us.
Sure, many of us do risky things. But the behaviors in many of their situations are normal. For example it’s quite normal for a teen to enjoy drinking with their older peers. You could say they could be harassed or pressured. But you don’t live life in a bubble
It would be very boring to live life in a bubble thinking people will harm you. Personally I am fine with dating older muscular men. Sure some are violent but y’know I give them a chance as a teen myself
At least many adults understand this and don’t really care about underage drinking or underage weed use. They respect teens’ freedoms, at least.
| 1,717,080,544
|
WaterOk9249
|
l6c1s2w
|
l6c08qv
| 23
| 1
|
CMV: the intent behind any action is more important than the way that action is perceived.
all interaction between people can be broken down into a series of \*intents\* and \*perceptions\*. the tenor and dynamics of relationships is determined by how accurately \*perception\* aligns with \*intent\* between the parties in common. i believe this places inherent priority on intent and makes perception naturally subordinate. i can see no situation where perception should be of higher importance than intent.
for example, even when one party is focused on shaping the perception of another, making perception appear to be of higher importance, they are acting on a base intent to manipulate or deceive; the perception of the other party is a product of their intended action. from the targeted party's perspective, if they are able to see through the presented action and recognize the manipulative intent behind it, they will be able to react in their own best interest; their interests depend on accurately perceiving the intent. therefore, intent remains the more important element of the interaction.
how in this view inaccurate? in what ways could i see the dynamics in question and understand perception to be more important than intent?
|
Hmm, I think we can build counterexamples when analyzing something from outside the agent. For example, say you, person x, hire person y to trick person z.
What matters most to you is that person z perceives the lie. The intent behind person y's action isn't important at all, except in how it serves z's perception of their action. By removing ourselves from person y's perspective, there are situations where intent is no longer the main concern.
Of course for you yourself, intention takes this greater importance. Cause you care about your own intentions, not necessarily others. Here's a potential counterexample there too. We don't necessarily care about our own intentions. Imagine you have intention x, but you realize later you were mistaken and should had intention y. Luckily everyone perceived you as having intention y from the start. In this case, intention x is not more important than perception y cause you on reflection disagree with your original intention x. In such a case, how others perceived you was more important
|
Besides intent and perception there is also reality. and this comes into play with your example. If I am focused on shaping your perceptions about a matter, then the fact of that matter determines whether or not i am being deceptive or manipulative.
A simple example might be, "don't eat that, it is poisonous". Perception, intent and reality could all be different.
* I think the food is poisonous, and my intent is to help you.
* in reality it is not poisonous. And also in reality I am not helping you.
* You think i am trying to trick you and steal your food.
an example in which perception is most important would be if I am interacting with the police and i reach into my pocket to pull out my phone. My intent is to retrieve my phone (maybe to record), but if there perception is that i am pulling out a gun, then nothing is more important then that perception. In that situation i must work hard to avoid creating an inaccurate perception or else i could die.
|
1d48gyj
|
CMV: the intent behind any action is more important than the way that action is perceived.
|
all interaction between people can be broken down into a series of \*intents\* and \*perceptions\*. the tenor and dynamics of relationships is determined by how accurately \*perception\* aligns with \*intent\* between the parties in common. i believe this places inherent priority on intent and makes perception naturally subordinate. i can see no situation where perception should be of higher importance than intent.
for example, even when one party is focused on shaping the perception of another, making perception appear to be of higher importance, they are acting on a base intent to manipulate or deceive; the perception of the other party is a product of their intended action. from the targeted party's perspective, if they are able to see through the presented action and recognize the manipulative intent behind it, they will be able to react in their own best interest; their interests depend on accurately perceiving the intent. therefore, intent remains the more important element of the interaction.
how in this view inaccurate? in what ways could i see the dynamics in question and understand perception to be more important than intent?
| 1,717,087,278
|
perldawg
|
l6ckczo
|
l6ck7mk
| 2
| 0
|
CMV: Legality of Abortions Should Be Decided Federally
I'm not an American and don't know much about American politics and law, please help me understand it better. Interesting points from other countries are still welcome!
I believe the debate on abortions cannot be left for the states to decide individually. It touches on fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to bodily autonomy, the right of privacy, liberty, and even religious freedom.
I think neither position can be consistent with leaving this open for the states. If for example one believes that abortion is murder, then surely it must be banned in all states. Some claim the overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't equate an abortion ban. I believe they merely celebrate the decision out of position, and the next step must be a nation-wide ban in their eyes. Similarly I don't see how being pro-choice is consistent with allowing abortions only in some states.
Change my view.
|
It doesn't matter if, in an ideal world, the US federal government should set a uniform rule on abortions: it simply can't, politically. In order for abortion to be legalized nation-wise or banned nation-wide, the US Congress would have to be able to agree on a position. They can't. Democrats control the House and the Republicans control the Senate (plus, you need 60+ votes to pass anything in the Senate for some reason). That means, practically speaking, no federal rules exist and the only rule-makers left are the individual states.
|
If “the right to one's own body” be a “fundamental right” then it shouldn't just be limited to abortion. It should mean one can use any drug one would want, sell one's redundant organs for money, have whatever cosmetic surgery or body modification one wants andsoforth. It's very odd that this “fundamental right” is laser pointed by many only at certain specific issues.
I think it's quite possible to not see it as a “fundamental right” but simply want abortion to be legal, the same way many other things are legal. That's how it seems to work in most countries. I find it amusing that many politicians outside of the U.S.A. criticized the U.S.A. Supreme Court ruling that said it wasn't a “constitutional right”, which was always a very sketchy interpretation of a very vague document, but in almost all of those countries it's not a “constitutional right” either; it's simply not illegal.
Justin Trudeau in particular was odd. As far as I know, it's not a “constitutional right” in Canada at all; it's simply not illegal. The same way it's not a “constitutional right” to be able to own a cat; there simply is no law against it.
|
1d49uzo
|
CMV: Legality of Abortions Should Be Decided Federally
|
I'm not an American and don't know much about American politics and law, please help me understand it better. Interesting points from other countries are still welcome!
I believe the debate on abortions cannot be left for the states to decide individually. It touches on fundamental rights: the right to life, the right to bodily autonomy, the right of privacy, liberty, and even religious freedom.
I think neither position can be consistent with leaving this open for the states. If for example one believes that abortion is murder, then surely it must be banned in all states. Some claim the overturning Roe vs. Wade doesn't equate an abortion ban. I believe they merely celebrate the decision out of position, and the next step must be a nation-wide ban in their eyes. Similarly I don't see how being pro-choice is consistent with allowing abortions only in some states.
Change my view.
| 1,717,091,114
|
JustReadingThx
|
l6cu88z
|
l6ctv8d
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: Al-Aqsa Mosque is a perfect symbol of colonization
Just to be clear, this shouldn't mean anything in a practical sense. It shouldn't be destroyed or anything. It is obviously a symbol of colonization though because it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship and its existence has been used to justify continued control over that land. Even today non-Muslims aren't allowed to go there most of the time.
I don't see it as being any different than the Spanish coming to the Americas and building cathedrals on top of their places of worship as a mechanism to spread their faith and culture. [The Spanish built a cathedral in Cholula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_los_Remedios,_Cholula#:~:text=The%20Iglesia%20de%20Nuestra%20Señora,central%20Mexican%20state%20of%20Puebla), for example, directly on top of one of the worlds largest pyramids. I don't see how this is any different than Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on top of the Temple Mount.
Not sure what would change my mind but quite frankly I don't want to see things this way. It just seems to be an unfortunate truth that many people aren't willing to see because of the current state of affairs.
FYI: Any comments about how Zionists are the real colonizers or anything else like that are going to be ignored. That's not what this is about.
|
I’ll give you the delta if you show me anything credible even coming close to saying this. It’s not that I think you’re lying I just won’t believe it until I see a resource saying it
|
From what I know both the Jews and the Palestinians share mostly the same DNA, so yes, both of them could be argued as natives.
Not sure what it has to do with our conversation but ok.
|
1d4dast
|
CMV: Al-Aqsa Mosque is a perfect symbol of colonization
|
Just to be clear, this shouldn't mean anything in a practical sense. It shouldn't be destroyed or anything. It is obviously a symbol of colonization though because it was built on top of somebody else's place of worship and its existence has been used to justify continued control over that land. Even today non-Muslims aren't allowed to go there most of the time.
I don't see it as being any different than the Spanish coming to the Americas and building cathedrals on top of their places of worship as a mechanism to spread their faith and culture. [The Spanish built a cathedral in Cholula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_de_Nuestra_Señora_de_los_Remedios,_Cholula#:~:text=The%20Iglesia%20de%20Nuestra%20Señora,central%20Mexican%20state%20of%20Puebla), for example, directly on top of one of the worlds largest pyramids. I don't see how this is any different than Muslims building the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock on top of the Temple Mount.
Not sure what would change my mind but quite frankly I don't want to see things this way. It just seems to be an unfortunate truth that many people aren't willing to see because of the current state of affairs.
FYI: Any comments about how Zionists are the real colonizers or anything else like that are going to be ignored. That's not what this is about.
| 1,717,100,044
|
BustaSyllables
|
l6edzol
|
l6e8hys
| 30
| 2
|
CMV: Rape is bad.
Rape is when an individual is sexually penetrated inside a bodily orfice, against their will. I will be arguing that rape perpetuated against a human, by a human, is morally bad.
Firstly, being raped caused the release of stress hormones. Being raped also activates the Amygdala structure inside the brin. The Amygdala is the fear center of the brain. These horomones and neural pathway causes changes in the synapse in the brain, which can cause a human to feel prolonged fear and panic long after the rape has finished.
This can negatively influence the quality of one's life, they can have peristant panic, even to associations only tangiently related to their original rape. This can prevent them from mainting friendships, holding a job, and may even cause other neuropsychiatric conditions like depression.
Moreso, rape could lead to unwanted pregancies, this can cause increased costs with abortion and/or raising an unwanted child. Unwanted childs could cause higher crime when they are older as they were not properly reared of by their human caretakers. This was demonstrated in the US, a nation on planet Earth, when crime declined roughly 18 years after the Roe vs Wade decision, which deciminalized abortion in all states.
Furthermore, rape could cause logistal disturbances, it is simply not okay for someone to hold up a situation by raping another, such as in a meeting or in public transport.
I look forward to hearing your counterarguments. Let's engage in fruitful discussion. Thank you.
|
>Rape is when an individual is sexually penetrated inside a bodily orfice, against their will. I will be arguing that rape perpetuated against a human, by a human, is bad.
Depending on how you define against their will. Sometimes couples initiate surprise sex without a clear consent from the other, this could be technically against their will but potentially greatly enjoyable. So it is not the case where all rape is bad.
There is also the whole community into Consensual Non Consent. Which mostly, are just consensual rape roleplay. Now, there is also a more extreme part of this community looking for an as genuine rape experience as possible. They engage in things like rape baiting, which involve trying to get raped by a stranger. It could be said that the rape baiter consented beforehand and seek it out purposefully, but the rapist definitely did not know about it and definitely think they are raping someone.
To continue the above point. There are people in the rape kink community who ended up genuinely liking their rape experience. This might be some unhealthy coping mechanism or a mental illness, but who are we to discount their subjective feelings and experiences?
So with this in mind. It is possible for specific incidents of rape to be good. But only by chance when the victim somehow respond positively to it, which we have examples of. In general however, we can never tell if a rape will lead to such an outcome and should not do it.
|
Well, rape is actually a good thing because it can help people get a good feeling they probably never felt before. Rape is also a sign of people being attracted to you, so it can improve self esteem in that way. Not to mention some people need to rape because they have no partner at the moment and are desperate. Plus with ab0rtion and birth control and procegures to clean the white stuff out, it may not even cause the women to give birth.
|
1d4dtea
|
CMV: Rape is bad.
|
Rape is when an individual is sexually penetrated inside a bodily orfice, against their will. I will be arguing that rape perpetuated against a human, by a human, is morally bad.
Firstly, being raped caused the release of stress hormones. Being raped also activates the Amygdala structure inside the brin. The Amygdala is the fear center of the brain. These horomones and neural pathway causes changes in the synapse in the brain, which can cause a human to feel prolonged fear and panic long after the rape has finished.
This can negatively influence the quality of one's life, they can have peristant panic, even to associations only tangiently related to their original rape. This can prevent them from mainting friendships, holding a job, and may even cause other neuropsychiatric conditions like depression.
Moreso, rape could lead to unwanted pregancies, this can cause increased costs with abortion and/or raising an unwanted child. Unwanted childs could cause higher crime when they are older as they were not properly reared of by their human caretakers. This was demonstrated in the US, a nation on planet Earth, when crime declined roughly 18 years after the Roe vs Wade decision, which deciminalized abortion in all states.
Furthermore, rape could cause logistal disturbances, it is simply not okay for someone to hold up a situation by raping another, such as in a meeting or in public transport.
I look forward to hearing your counterarguments. Let's engage in fruitful discussion. Thank you.
| 1,717,101,348
|
CompetitionExtreme36
|
l6drqm6
|
l6dmf1l
| 1
| -4
|
CMV: It's better to have a cheap knife that sharpens easily, even if it loses more metal, than a nice hard knife that takes training to sharpen or requires a sharpening service. The cost won't matter for a non-pro.
So you can get a super nice, hard steel knife for $300+ that will take and hold a super nice edge. But you either need to learn how to properly sharpen one, or you need to have it professionally sharpened. On the other hand, you can buy a $30 knife off Amazon that isn't as great steel, but you can run the thing through a Chef'sChoice sharpener every week and not care about how much metal you're taking off, because at $30 a knife you can go probably decades before the overall cost of replacement will exceed your single $300 knife. I have both. I love my nicer knives. But when they dull I default to my $30 Chinese veg knife that I can abuse and resharpen infinity times before I need to replace it, and basically ignore my nice Japanese steel knives until I decide to get them professionally sharpened... mostly out of guilt from seeing them sit in the drawer.
|
I would love to try to shift your view a bit here, because while I understand where you're coming from, I think you may be focusing in on the wrong variables. While edge retention, steel hardness, and ease of sharpening are all important, I think people should be asking themselves a much more important question when buying a knife: what fits my cooking style. If a person prefers to use a rocking motion when they chop ingredients, a cheaper knife is actually going to be ideal. That kind of motion is especially taxing on the kinds of higher end steel you often see in pricy knives, so getting something cheaper that can be resharpened quickly makes sense. Alternately, if you really prefer to push cut or tap chop, that's going to require a blade that can hold a really sharp edge to work consistently. In that case, a more expensive knife might be the better choice, even if that means needing to learn how to sharpen with a stone (which I agree can be a real pain).
To share my own experience, I love to cook, and have knives from a couple of different price points. I've have cheaper ones that I can and do put through mechanical sharpeners, and love to break out from time to time when I'm doing prep that I know is going to be tough on the blade. I also got gifted a super nice one that I honestly use a bit less often, because while I love cooking with it, I know I'll be stressing myself out eventually trying to get it properly resharpened. That said, my daily workhorse is a mid-range [Chinese chef's knife](https://www.seriouseats.com/chinese-cleaver-kitchen-knife), that bridges the gap between the two catagories. It holds enough of an edge that I can tap chop to my heart's content, but the weight and ergonomics of that style of knife ensures that it still works fine even when not razor sharp. It requires stone sharpening, but unlike my super high end knife still gets more than sharp enough to keep using even if I do a meh job. It wasn't about cheap versus expensive, or hard steel versus soft, it was about finding a style of kitchen knife that fit how I'm most comfortable doing prep work.
|
>If I google “Walmart kitchen knife,” I find a six piece stainless steel set for under $20, and several different brands of three-piece set for under $10.
Good for you
$30 is still considered a cheap knife and not Mid Range
|
1d4j8a2
|
CMV: It's better to have a cheap knife that sharpens easily, even if it loses more metal, than a nice hard knife that takes training to sharpen or requires a sharpening service. The cost won't matter for a non-pro.
|
So you can get a super nice, hard steel knife for $300+ that will take and hold a super nice edge. But you either need to learn how to properly sharpen one, or you need to have it professionally sharpened. On the other hand, you can buy a $30 knife off Amazon that isn't as great steel, but you can run the thing through a Chef'sChoice sharpener every week and not care about how much metal you're taking off, because at $30 a knife you can go probably decades before the overall cost of replacement will exceed your single $300 knife. I have both. I love my nicer knives. But when they dull I default to my $30 Chinese veg knife that I can abuse and resharpen infinity times before I need to replace it, and basically ignore my nice Japanese steel knives until I decide to get them professionally sharpened... mostly out of guilt from seeing them sit in the drawer.
| 1,717,116,759
|
Mephistophanes75
|
l6f59qz
|
l6f06w7
| 1
| 0
|
CMV: There isn’t anything I can think of that Biden has done wrong that Trump wouldn’t be much worse on
Labor? Biden picketed with AWU and that’s never been done by POTUS and his appointee in the NLRB seems to be starting to kick serious ass.
Infrastructure? His Build Back Better Act is so good that Republicans who tried to torpedo it are trying to take credit for it now.
Economics? I genuinely don’t know what Trump would be doing better honestly, though this area is probably where I’m weakest in admittedly.
I’ll give out deltas like hot cakes if you can show me something Trump would or has proposed doing that would take us down a better path.
|
Counterpoint: Biden had a dog that bit (possible seditious) Secret Service agents.
Trump would never have that happen. Because he doesn't have pets. Because animals don't like him.
|
> day one Biden EOs caused fuel prices to double
gas prices February 2020: $2.455
gas prices February 2021: $2.409
Day 1 of Biden's presidency: January 20th, 2021.
|
1d4kyjr
|
CMV: There isn’t anything I can think of that Biden has done wrong that Trump wouldn’t be much worse on
|
Labor? Biden picketed with AWU and that’s never been done by POTUS and his appointee in the NLRB seems to be starting to kick serious ass.
Infrastructure? His Build Back Better Act is so good that Republicans who tried to torpedo it are trying to take credit for it now.
Economics? I genuinely don’t know what Trump would be doing better honestly, though this area is probably where I’m weakest in admittedly.
I’ll give out deltas like hot cakes if you can show me something Trump would or has proposed doing that would take us down a better path.
| 1,717,122,194
|
EnvironmentalAd1006
|
l6feizo
|
l6fcay6
| 91
| 8
|
CMV: Trump wouldn’t have been indicted under normal circumstances. The trial was a purely political move by the establishment to secure a Democratic victory in November
PLEASE READ
I am a leftist. I voted for Bernie twice, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. I plan to vote for Biden again this year.
But objectively speaking I just can’t comprehend this trial. If Trump is guilty, Bush is 10x as guilty (Iraq War being the most egregious crime). Nixon got a pardon for literal domestic espionage. David Petraus leaked confidential documents to his mistress. And I can go on if you’d like. None of them got even a slap on the wrist. Why? Because they didn’t seek re-election.
The double standard is insane. To me, it’s clearly not about justice. It’s just the brain rot that is American politics. I hate Trump, he’s a bumbling idiot, but this whole debacle is only make things worse.
|
You are comparing federal offences to Trump's state conviction. The issues you identify are potentially failure of the federal prosecution service. Trump committed a state crime, and so the state convicted him. The others you mentioned did not.
|
That’s a whole lot of disclaimers to say absolutely nothing of real substance. There is absolutely no relation between the Iraq War and falsifying documents. He was tried in a court of law for 34 specific crimes and found guilty of those crimes by a jury of his peers. This is the same equality under the law that we all face. Gesticulating at people who have not been criminally tried for completely unrelated things is meaningless.
|
1d4l7o1
|
CMV: Trump wouldn’t have been indicted under normal circumstances. The trial was a purely political move by the establishment to secure a Democratic victory in November
|
PLEASE READ
I am a leftist. I voted for Bernie twice, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020. I plan to vote for Biden again this year.
But objectively speaking I just can’t comprehend this trial. If Trump is guilty, Bush is 10x as guilty (Iraq War being the most egregious crime). Nixon got a pardon for literal domestic espionage. David Petraus leaked confidential documents to his mistress. And I can go on if you’d like. None of them got even a slap on the wrist. Why? Because they didn’t seek re-election.
The double standard is insane. To me, it’s clearly not about justice. It’s just the brain rot that is American politics. I hate Trump, he’s a bumbling idiot, but this whole debacle is only make things worse.
| 1,717,123,011
|
Ass-Pissing
|
l6f6fe9
|
l6f66ar
| 18
| 14
|
CMV: Trump's trial was politically motivated and he shouldn't have been charged or convicted
Now, I understand there's [another CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d4l7o1/cmv_trump_wouldnt_have_been_indicted_under_normal/) that's very similar on the front page, but it only argues whataboutisms against other figures like Bush and Nixon. That post didn't even touch on the substance or facts in this case at all. I don't feel like it fairly represents the view point of conservatives like me who see this trial as illegitimate.
Let's be clear, I concede Trump in this case may have violated the letter of the law, at least according to how the State of NY interprets it, for a few of the counts, but it's a largely a small crime that should not have deserved scrutiny if he were not Trump. Here's my argument:
1. In 2016, Michael Cohen acted as Trump's lawyer and paid Stormy Daniels to sign an NDA.
2. Trump was paying Michael Cohen to be his lawyer, so he paid him retainers.
3. The prosecution argues that by paying Stormy Daniels to sign an NDA, it's an illegal campaign contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, simply because it could have been done to help Trump's image. This is some byzantine - very "letter of the law" stuff, since if Trump cut a check himself for the NDA, there wouldn't be a case!
4. Prosecution argues the money Trump was paying to Cohen was to reimburse Cohen for the NDA, so, combined with #3, it's Trump knowingly skirting campaign finance laws. However they never explained why Trump would pay Cohen 400k to reimburse him for the 120k the NDA cost. Outside of the testimony from Cohen, who frequently perjured himself in the past, there's no evidence.
It seems like the entire case hinges upon the legal theory that Cohen obtaining an NDA from Stormy Daniels counts as a campaign contribution, which, apparently, the state of NY upholds, but we'll see what happens at the supreme court level. However, even if it is, in this case, it's a very small thing, and shouldn't rise to the level of scrutiny that should get someone dragged through the mud. "Three Felonies a Day" may be an exaggeration, but the Fed (or in this case, the State) will get someone on something technical sooner or later, even though it's relatively harmless.
|
This is just not what the evidence was.
For example:
2. Trump and Cohen did not have a retainer agreement, and Trump was not paying Cohen for legal work in 2017 (which is when these payments were made).
4. There was plenty of evidence to explain why the amount was $400K. It was to reimburse Cohen for the Stormy payment + another thing he paid for, and there was a whole thing with his 2016 bonus, all doubled to account for the fact that he’d have to pay taxes on it since they were lying to pretend it was income and not a reimbursement.
Also 4. The evidence was not just from Cohen. For example, David Pecker testified about the whole scheme and meetings with Trump. There is documentary evidence, including handwritten notes from Weisselberg, explaining the payments.
It’s fine if you disagree with the jury’s decision, of course, but it seems like you’re not actually very familiar with the evidence that came in.
|
Trump had a chance to clear his name. He had a trial. He was found guilty by a jury of his peers, and the trial was conducted according to the law. He was given due process. This is how our system works.
Trump is not a victim he's a convicted felon. Stop treating him like he's innocent when he was just found guilty
|
1d4n4d4
|
CMV: Trump's trial was politically motivated and he shouldn't have been charged or convicted
|
Now, I understand there's [another CMV](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1d4l7o1/cmv_trump_wouldnt_have_been_indicted_under_normal/) that's very similar on the front page, but it only argues whataboutisms against other figures like Bush and Nixon. That post didn't even touch on the substance or facts in this case at all. I don't feel like it fairly represents the view point of conservatives like me who see this trial as illegitimate.
Let's be clear, I concede Trump in this case may have violated the letter of the law, at least according to how the State of NY interprets it, for a few of the counts, but it's a largely a small crime that should not have deserved scrutiny if he were not Trump. Here's my argument:
1. In 2016, Michael Cohen acted as Trump's lawyer and paid Stormy Daniels to sign an NDA.
2. Trump was paying Michael Cohen to be his lawyer, so he paid him retainers.
3. The prosecution argues that by paying Stormy Daniels to sign an NDA, it's an illegal campaign contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, simply because it could have been done to help Trump's image. This is some byzantine - very "letter of the law" stuff, since if Trump cut a check himself for the NDA, there wouldn't be a case!
4. Prosecution argues the money Trump was paying to Cohen was to reimburse Cohen for the NDA, so, combined with #3, it's Trump knowingly skirting campaign finance laws. However they never explained why Trump would pay Cohen 400k to reimburse him for the 120k the NDA cost. Outside of the testimony from Cohen, who frequently perjured himself in the past, there's no evidence.
It seems like the entire case hinges upon the legal theory that Cohen obtaining an NDA from Stormy Daniels counts as a campaign contribution, which, apparently, the state of NY upholds, but we'll see what happens at the supreme court level. However, even if it is, in this case, it's a very small thing, and shouldn't rise to the level of scrutiny that should get someone dragged through the mud. "Three Felonies a Day" may be an exaggeration, but the Fed (or in this case, the State) will get someone on something technical sooner or later, even though it's relatively harmless.
| 1,717,129,417
|
ImNoLawyer
|
l6fllvi
|
l6fl7l1
| 52
| 11
|
CMV: It's valid to worry that Keir Starmer with a huge majority will be an authoritarian Prime Minister
This is the first UK election that I follow closely, and I have noticed that Starmer is being very authoritatian in his actions. He seems to adopt the principle of "be loyal to me or you're out", by kicking purging those on the left like Faiza Shaheen, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, (potentially) Diane Abbott, and others, while propping up loyalists like Luke Akehurst (who has a _very_ problematic history on Twitter) and Josh Simons into the party. A few months ago, he has also allegedly put pressure on the House of Commons' Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to bend parliamentary rules so that he gets his way in the Gaza ceasefire vote, _as an Opposition Leader_. Imagine what he can do when he's the Prime Minister. If he does win a huge majority (some polls suggest that he could have 500+ seats), it's entirely possible that his own wing in the party will have a majority by itself, and he can pass whatever legislation he wants without consulting the wider party. Plus, I don't recall him saying he will overturn some of the highly authoritarian legislations passed in recent years, like the Policing Bill and Public Order Act, so he could exercise these powers to shut down public dissent even further.
While his policies are no doubt better than the Tories, I still worry that his authoritarian tendencies will be strengthen if he gets into power with a massive mandate from the electorate.
|
Keir Starmer is not an authoritarian by any stretch of the definition. Even a UK Prime Minister with a large majority does not have a carte blanche to do whatever they like. The last UK PM to have a large majority was Boris and he had to resign after barely two years. PMs are constrained by law, by their party and the factions within it, by the civil service, by parliamentary and governmental procedure, by the House of Lords, and by many other factors.
Authoritarianism is also very different to having a large democratic mandate. I'd argue authoritarianism is significantly beyond your benchmark of Keir seeming to not be vocally against the Policing and Crime Act enough.
|
> He seems to adopt the principle of "be loyal to me or you're out",
This isn't authoritarian, this is how parties are run. Starmer has a political position, he wants MPs that support that position, he doesn't want MPs that oppose it. It's entirely normal and framing it as authoritarian is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
> allegedly put pressure on the House of Commons' Speaker
What's wrong with putting pressure on people? That's his job.
> and he can pass whatever legislation he wants without consulting the wider party
Yes, that is what he's hoping for.
What you appear to be concerned about is not that he's going to be authorisation but that he's going to have a moderate/centre-left agenda.
|
1d4sdvc
|
CMV: It's valid to worry that Keir Starmer with a huge majority will be an authoritarian Prime Minister
|
This is the first UK election that I follow closely, and I have noticed that Starmer is being very authoritatian in his actions. He seems to adopt the principle of "be loyal to me or you're out", by kicking purging those on the left like Faiza Shaheen, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, (potentially) Diane Abbott, and others, while propping up loyalists like Luke Akehurst (who has a _very_ problematic history on Twitter) and Josh Simons into the party. A few months ago, he has also allegedly put pressure on the House of Commons' Speaker Lindsay Hoyle to bend parliamentary rules so that he gets his way in the Gaza ceasefire vote, _as an Opposition Leader_. Imagine what he can do when he's the Prime Minister. If he does win a huge majority (some polls suggest that he could have 500+ seats), it's entirely possible that his own wing in the party will have a majority by itself, and he can pass whatever legislation he wants without consulting the wider party. Plus, I don't recall him saying he will overturn some of the highly authoritarian legislations passed in recent years, like the Policing Bill and Public Order Act, so he could exercise these powers to shut down public dissent even further.
While his policies are no doubt better than the Tories, I still worry that his authoritarian tendencies will be strengthen if he gets into power with a massive mandate from the electorate.
| 1,717,151,254
|
WheatBerryPie
|
l6gvtu0
|
l6gs3ij
| 47
| 9
|
CMV: I Don’t Feel Empathy For People With ADHD
Disclaimer: I know my opinions are wrong and offensive
I have friends who have ADHD and when I hear them describe things like how they talk about how they can’t concentrate on the Maths tests or science homework etc etc all I can think is ‘well, isn’t that the same for all us’. I know I shouldn’t think this but I just can’t help it. The symptoms seem like issues I deal with everyday; can’t focus on boring tasks, can’t organise, can’t follow a schedule… Those all seem like common problems when I hear them and I know it’s meant to be more severe but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I want to feel sympathy for this as I know it must be hard to struggle with these things even more than an average person. Please can somebody attempt to describe ADHD in a way that I can understand as every description I’ve found on the internet just hasn’t really made me understand ADHD any more than I did going into it. Same for any of my friends’ descriptions of it.
Thanks to anyone who read all that, I genuinely mean no offence and just want to better understand it so I lose these opinions.
|
ADHD is about more than attention. It's more like a brain that won't turn off. It's hard to describe in a meaningful way to someone who doesn't have it, but the inability to focus and keep schedules and what have you all stem from that basic issue: it's a brain working overtime all the time to process things and get that next bit of attentive input.
By the way, a lot of how we talk about ADHD is still couched in educational terms, which implies that it's a problem for schools instead of for humans and largely negates the experience of adults with ADHD problems as a result. The popularized treatment of ADHD as a behavioral instance that requires changes from the person who has it (as if they're a bully or violent or something else), instead of a treatable condition, definitely hurts the overall perception.
I think you should look at it like you would look at depression and anxiety. We know people can't just "be happy" or "snap out of it," and we know that someone who literally, physiologically, cannot relax cannot simply quiet their mind and think of nothing can't just "fix it" with a calendar book or meditation.
|
So when I took abnormal psych in college, my professor started the course with a warning - do not self diagnose. **Everyone** has some degree of the symptoms for **every*** disease we will talk about, she told us; what makes something an illness is the degree of impact it has on your life.
Yes, everyone has difficulty concentrating sometimes, but what makes ADHD different is that they often are completely incapable of sitting still and concentrating for more than a few seconds at a time, making it impossible to study. It isn't just "being bored" - it is as if their brain is running a thousand miles an hour, making it impossible to fixate on a single concept for more than a moment.
It is a normal problem amped up to 11, creating a massive impact on quality of life.
|
1d4x38o
|
CMV: I Don’t Feel Empathy For People With ADHD
|
Disclaimer: I know my opinions are wrong and offensive
I have friends who have ADHD and when I hear them describe things like how they talk about how they can’t concentrate on the Maths tests or science homework etc etc all I can think is ‘well, isn’t that the same for all us’. I know I shouldn’t think this but I just can’t help it. The symptoms seem like issues I deal with everyday; can’t focus on boring tasks, can’t organise, can’t follow a schedule… Those all seem like common problems when I hear them and I know it’s meant to be more severe but it still doesn’t make sense to me. I want to feel sympathy for this as I know it must be hard to struggle with these things even more than an average person. Please can somebody attempt to describe ADHD in a way that I can understand as every description I’ve found on the internet just hasn’t really made me understand ADHD any more than I did going into it. Same for any of my friends’ descriptions of it.
Thanks to anyone who read all that, I genuinely mean no offence and just want to better understand it so I lose these opinions.
| 1,717,166,044
|
Tchexxum
|
l6heysg
|
l6hdvj2
| 73
| 30
|
CMV: There's no good reason to back into a parking spot.
I see this all the time and it completely baffles me. I'll be driving through a parking lot and I'll get stuck waiting for someone doing a 6-point turn in order to back into their spot. It just makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe it will end up being easier for them to pull out when they're ready to leave, but any time they save there is going to be wasted ten-fold by trying to back into the spot in the first place. Especially since it always seems to be big SUVs or lifted trucks that want to do it. Not only does it take them forever to back-in, but they also risk nicking the other parked cars if they're not careful. Sometimes I think people do this just because it takes longer. It's like they get off on making me wait for them to park just right, or maybe they like making their passengers have to wait. Or maybe they just like being in their car? Maybe they're dreading whatever errand they have to run? These are the only explanations that I can come up with, nothing else makes any sense. Someone explain this phenomenon to me.
And Happy Friday!
|
There's a few reasons. Due to the fact that the front wheels are used to steer on cars, reversing into spots gives you more maneuverability since the front wheels essentially pivot around that back wheels. This is why you often see larger vehicles reverse into spots. If the parking lot is tight enough, it may just be physically impossible for them to pull forward into a spot without hitting another car. It's a similar reason that forklifts have rear wheel steering. It allows you more maneuverability in tight spaces.
> I'll be driving through a parking lot and I'll get stuck waiting for someone doing a 6-point turn in order to back into their spot.
This could really just be a driver issue. Assuming you have space, you should be able to pull into any spot with 1 turn. If you can't then it's likely because you aren't very aware of your cars turning radius or blind spots.
This leads directly into the next one which is safety. When you reverse into a spot, the main things you need to worry about are stationary cars on either side as well as any people walking inside your parking spot. These are relatively low risk as most people tend to not walk in open parking spots and if they do, it's likely predictable.
If you back out of the spot though, there are just a lot more hazards. For one, your blind spots are much larger. Say you have two large trucks on either side of you, you won't have any vision past them until your front window passes the rear of the trucks. If you are pulling in forward, you have to pull out way further into the road before you actually get vision compared to if you reversed into a spot. Bigger/longer blind spots means more opportunities for accidents. Especially considering you are more likely to have an accident when pulling out of a spot as you are dealing with people walking to their cars or other cars passing by.
|
>I'll be driving through a parking lot and I'll get stuck waiting for someone doing a 6-point turn in order to back into their spot.
Or stuck waiting for them to do a 6 point turn when backing out.
You're basically just saying you'd rather someone else be inconvenienced when the person backs out instead of you being inconvenienced when backing in.
*Someone* is going to be waiting for that 6 point turn you're complaining about.
>Not only does it take them forever to back-in, but they also risk nicking the other parked cars if they're not careful.
This applies to going front-first into spaces too.
But backing in has the added convenience of a backup camera that shows exactly where you're car is going to be with that little diagram thingy.
|
1d4yqmq
|
CMV: There's no good reason to back into a parking spot.
|
I see this all the time and it completely baffles me. I'll be driving through a parking lot and I'll get stuck waiting for someone doing a 6-point turn in order to back into their spot. It just makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe it will end up being easier for them to pull out when they're ready to leave, but any time they save there is going to be wasted ten-fold by trying to back into the spot in the first place. Especially since it always seems to be big SUVs or lifted trucks that want to do it. Not only does it take them forever to back-in, but they also risk nicking the other parked cars if they're not careful. Sometimes I think people do this just because it takes longer. It's like they get off on making me wait for them to park just right, or maybe they like making their passengers have to wait. Or maybe they just like being in their car? Maybe they're dreading whatever errand they have to run? These are the only explanations that I can come up with, nothing else makes any sense. Someone explain this phenomenon to me.
And Happy Friday!
| 1,717,170,349
|
AcephalicDude
|
l6hvqx6
|
l6hv815
| 158
| 12
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.