Split (2)

train · 8.7k rows

claim string	positive string	negative string	post_id string	post_title string	post_text string	post_author string	positive_chain_length int64	negative_chain_length int64	positive_comments list	negative_comments list	positive_comment_ids list	negative_comment_ids list
CMV: Not everyone should have kids. This may be the coldest take of all time. I'm not just talking about people with clear personal issues like addiction that would be detrimental to a child's development, there are countless reasons why having kids isn't going to be in your best interest and they mostly boil down to financial or medical reasons. I know there's the argument that the birth rate is going down in developed countries (it's sitting on average at 1.6-1.9 depending on the country, 2.1 is where you want it to be for growth) but this is ONLY for developed countries. We're not at risk of our population declining or stagnating any time soon when developing countries are seeing a marked birth rate increase. We're at the point in medical science where women aren't needing to have 6+ kids in the hope that a handful of them survive into adulthood, we have the ability to invest more time and energy into the kids that are already around rather than simply having more just because we're expected to.	Sorry, is the view that people below a certain financial threshold or who have medical issues shouldn't have kids at all, or should have fewer kids than they might otherwise want to have? --- Sorry, I could have probably been more clear in that part. The point I meant was that there are real barriers to being able to meaningfully provide for a child (being mostly financial or medical) and that people whose life has these barriers shouldn't be expected to procreate when it's outside of their means to actually care for the child in those ways. I hope that makes sense. --- 1. Everybody’s life has barriers of some sort: how exactly are you determining the threshold for someone not being able to care for a child? Medical and financial challenges are a wide spectrum, I think you need to be more specific here. 2. Procreation is the baseline of life. I would say procreation is a fair expectation for most people (not required of course, but expected/encouraged) Your framing makes it seem like people only have kids because of societal pressure. But it’s one of our most fundamental biological drives. That’s the only reason the societal pressure even exists - procreation is the foundation of our society. 3. I disagree with the general premise that you need to have a perfect life to care for a child. It’s perfectly fine to YOLO and have a baby, and figure it out along the way. Billions of people did that in much worse times, and it was fine. This modern expectation of a perfect childhood is unrealistic imo, and suicidal on a civilizational level. It should never be considered selfish or immoral to create life - pro-natalism gang all the way	Are you saying people in certain positions should think twice, or.someone else should enforce a no-kids for you rule? --- More from a social pressure stand point of "just because you can, doesn't mean you're in a good position to do so". Especially in hetero relationships, there's an expectation that kids are on the table at some point. --- Would you pressure them not to have kids, or just stop pressuring people to have kids in the first place?	1mqkdtm	CMV: Not everyone should have kids.	This may be the coldest take of all time. I'm not just talking about people with clear personal issues like addiction that would be detrimental to a child's development, there are countless reasons why having kids isn't going to be in your best interest and they mostly boil down to financial or medical reasons. I know there's the argument that the birth rate is going down in developed countries (it's sitting on average at 1.6-1.9 depending on the country, 2.1 is where you want it to be for growth) but this is ONLY for developed countries. We're not at risk of our population declining or stagnating any time soon when developing countries are seeing a marked birth rate increase. We're at the point in medical science where women aren't needing to have 6+ kids in the hope that a handful of them survive into adulthood, we have the ability to invest more time and energy into the kids that are already around rather than simply having more just because we're expected to.	Fletcher-wordy	3	3	[ { "author": "Icy_River_8259", "id": "n8rffh1", "score": 12, "text": "Sorry, is the view that people below a certain financial threshold or who have medical issues shouldn't have kids at all, or should have fewer kids than they might otherwise want to have?", "timestamp": 1755223395 }, { "author": "Fletcher-wordy", "id": "n8rfs0x", "score": 21, "text": "Sorry, I could have probably been more clear in that part.\n\nThe point I meant was that there are real barriers to being able to meaningfully provide for a child (being mostly financial or medical) and that people whose life has these barriers shouldn't be expected to procreate when it's outside of their means to actually care for the child in those ways.\n\nI hope that makes sense.", "timestamp": 1755223524 }, { "author": "CarrotcakeSuperSand", "id": "n8sc8xh", "score": -7, "text": "1. Everybody’s life has barriers of some sort: how exactly are you determining the threshold for someone not being able to care for a child? Medical and financial challenges are a wide spectrum, I think you need to be more specific here.\n\n2. Procreation is the baseline of life. I would say procreation is a fair expectation for most people (not required of course, but expected/encouraged) Your framing makes it seem like people only have kids because of societal pressure. But it’s one of our most fundamental biological drives. That’s the only reason the societal pressure even exists - procreation is the foundation of our society.\n\n3. I disagree with the general premise that you need to have a perfect life to care for a child. It’s perfectly fine to YOLO and have a baby, and figure it out along the way. Billions of people did that in much worse times, and it was fine. This modern expectation of a perfect childhood is unrealistic imo, and suicidal on a civilizational level. It should never be considered selfish or immoral to create life - pro-natalism gang all the way", "timestamp": 1755238098 } ]	[ { "author": "DebutsPal", "id": "n8rftin", "score": 55, "text": "Are you saying people in certain positions should think twice, or.someone else should enforce a no-kids for you rule?", "timestamp": 1755223540 }, { "author": "Fletcher-wordy", "id": "n8rg61s", "score": 55, "text": "More from a social pressure stand point of \"just because you can, doesn't mean you're in a good position to do so\". Especially in hetero relationships, there's an expectation that kids are on the table at some point.", "timestamp": 1755223668 }, { "author": "DebutsPal", "id": "n8rgqn8", "score": 25, "text": "Would you pressure them not to have kids, or just stop pressuring people to have kids in the first place?", "timestamp": 1755223881 } ]	[ "n8rffh1", "n8rfs0x", "n8sc8xh" ]	[ "n8rftin", "n8rg61s", "n8rgqn8" ]
CMV: the word "incel" is a baseless insult used by people to describe a certain political affiliation. Incel means involuntary celibate which was coined by people to describe themselves and why they are not having sex and to point out that it is no fault of their own. Incel is now thrown around to describe people on the right even when said people don't subscribe to said ideology, much like the word cuck is thrown around at people on the left. Incel is not about a movement anymore but instead a disparaging remark to describe people of a certain political affiliation, when I see people called an incel 9 out of 10 it is someone describing a person who has right leaning views and is used to disregard their points to said discussion.	You've got it backwards. The right wing isn't associated with incels because of people using "incel" as an insult. Rather, the word "incel" itself [was appropriated by](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) right-wing people who self-identified as incels. Eventually, the term "incel" came to be understood to refer to this right-wing online subculture specifically, which supplanted its previous meaning (i.e. the meaning of the term as it was originally understood by Alana and others in her online community). Now "incel" refers primarily to an online right-wing community characterized by "resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people." But that's not because of anyone trying to use "incel" as an insult: that's because of the way self-identified incels act. --- My point is incel is being used against people who don't even identify with the incel movement. You can be called an incel for not agreeing with a women or leaning to the right on issues even if you are respectful. Incel is a term to disparage people on the right even if they don't agree with the incel movement. --- Do you have an example of the use you are talking about? In my experience, "incel" is a term that is primarily used by members of the incel community as a self-identification, secondarily used by others referring to that community, and only rarely used as an insult against people who are not a member of that community. --- https://www.reddit.com/r/yourmomshousepodcast/comments/a7jcwo/your_moms_house_podcast_ep_479_w_nikki_glaser/ec4t1ka https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8oye9/the_word_incel_is_the_far_left_equivalent_of_cuck/eccgnbe Here is two examples of people being called incels and both people are left leaning spouting the incel term. If you can find anything with an incel feel in those posts please do tell. --- Neither of those links has somebody calling anybody an incel for having right-wing views. One specifically is calling people incels for attacking a woman, like I said. Unless sexism is a core right-wing value, then this doesn't show what you say it shows.	Can you show any examples. Personally I havent seen this happening (despite being part of some left wing communities and inceltears) so I’d be curious to see a couple of examples of it being thrown around baseless. --- Anytime someone tries to advocate for a male-friendly approach to a social or legal issue, the word incel magically appears. --- Do you have an example or two? Like I said, I genuinly enjoy and lurk at liberal and specfically inceltears subreddits and dont see this behaviour. I’d be interested in a couple of examples considering this happens “9 out of 10 times” or “anytime” so? --- https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8lvg4/men_should_have_the_option_to_financially_abort_a/ecbtach Here's one that literally just conflates them in the OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9qlso1/this_place_is_the_right_wing_version_of --- 1st link. Literally someone from MGTOW (literally their top post ever took one second). Also someone disregarding female bodily autonomy not that we are here to discuss that (a common incel view). I mean the post history is a mess of common incel views. 2nd. 1. Hyperbole. 2. Posting to unpopular opinion, no? So, an unpopular opinion, no? Isn’t posting that a recognition at some level the opinion is not popular. Also nobody is saying it NEVER happens. But if the only example is clear hyperbole maybe you should get move examples before you go “anytime” and “9 out of 10”.	a8pqhh	CMV: the word "incel" is a baseless insult used by people to describe a certain political affiliation.	Incel means involuntary celibate which was coined by people to describe themselves and why they are not having sex and to point out that it is no fault of their own. Incel is now thrown around to describe people on the right even when said people don't subscribe to said ideology, much like the word cuck is thrown around at people on the left. Incel is not about a movement anymore but instead a disparaging remark to describe people of a certain political affiliation, when I see people called an incel 9 out of 10 it is someone describing a person who has right leaning views and is used to disregard their points to said discussion.	themarksmann	5	5	[ { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "eccnyzn", "score": 27, "text": "You've got it backwards. The right wing isn't associated with incels because of people using \"incel\" as an insult. Rather, the word \"incel\" itself [was appropriated by](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel) right-wing people who self-identified as incels. Eventually, the term \"incel\" came to be understood to refer to this right-wing online subculture specifically, which supplanted its previous meaning (i.e. the meaning of the term as it was originally understood by Alana and others in her online community). Now \"incel\" refers primarily to an online right-wing community characterized by \"resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.\" But that's not because of anyone trying to use \"incel\" as an insult: that's because of the way self-identified incels act.", "timestamp": 1545523136 }, { "author": "themarksmann", "id": "eccp1cm", "score": 1, "text": "My point is incel is being used against people who don't even identify with the incel movement. You can be called an incel for not agreeing with a women or leaning to the right on issues even if you are respectful. Incel is a term to disparage people on the right even if they don't agree with the incel movement.", "timestamp": 1545524089 }, { "author": "yyzjertl", "id": "eccpk45", "score": 13, "text": "Do you have an example of the use you are talking about? In my experience, \"incel\" is a term that is primarily used by members of the incel community as a self-identification, secondarily used by others referring to that community, and only rarely used as an insult against people who are not a member of that community.", "timestamp": 1545524555 }, { "author": "themarksmann", "id": "eccps7x", "score": 0, "text": "https://www.reddit.com/r/yourmomshousepodcast/comments/a7jcwo/your_moms_house_podcast_ep_479_w_nikki_glaser/ec4t1ka\n\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8oye9/the_word_incel_is_the_far_left_equivalent_of_cuck/eccgnbe\n\n\nHere is two examples of people being called incels and both people are left leaning spouting the incel term. If you can find anything with an incel feel in those posts please do tell.", "timestamp": 1545524765 }, { "author": "Spaffin", "id": "eccq4ma", "score": 18, "text": "Neither of those links has somebody calling anybody an incel for having right-wing views. One specifically is calling people incels for attacking a woman, like I said.\n\nUnless sexism is a core right-wing value, then this doesn't show what you say it shows.", "timestamp": 1545525077 } ]	[ { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccn9c4", "score": 10, "text": "Can you show any examples. Personally I havent seen this happening (despite being part of some left wing communities and inceltears) so I’d be curious to see a couple of examples of it being thrown around baseless. ", "timestamp": 1545522527 }, { "author": "whatyoucallaflip", "id": "eccpk95", "score": -3, "text": "Anytime someone tries to advocate for a male-friendly approach to a social or legal issue, the word incel magically appears. \n\n", "timestamp": 1545524559 }, { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccu0cp", "score": 8, "text": "Do you have an example or two? Like I said, I genuinly enjoy and lurk at liberal and specfically inceltears subreddits and dont see this behaviour. I’d be interested in a couple of examples considering this happens “9 out of 10 times” or “anytime” so? ", "timestamp": 1545528767 }, { "author": "whatyoucallaflip", "id": "eccuu34", "score": -1, "text": "https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/a8lvg4/men_should_have_the_option_to_financially_abort_a/ecbtach\n\nHere's one that literally just conflates them in the OP:\n\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/9qlso1/this_place_is_the_right_wing_version_of", "timestamp": 1545529551 }, { "author": "Helpfulcloning", "id": "eccvfjm", "score": 5, "text": "1st link. Literally someone from MGTOW (literally their top post ever took one second). Also someone disregarding female bodily autonomy not that we are here to discuss that (a common incel view). I mean the post history is a mess of common incel views.\n\n2nd. 1. Hyperbole. 2. Posting to unpopular opinion, no? So, an unpopular opinion, no? Isn’t posting that a recognition at some level the opinion is not popular. Also nobody is saying it NEVER happens. But if the only example is clear hyperbole maybe you should get move examples before you go “anytime” and “9 out of 10”. ", "timestamp": 1545530117 } ]	[ "eccnyzn", "eccp1cm", "eccpk45", "eccps7x", "eccq4ma" ]	[ "eccn9c4", "eccpk95", "eccu0cp", "eccuu34", "eccvfjm" ]
CMV: People insisting on being referred to by genderqueer pronouns do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. While I can sympathize with mtf or ftm trans people, those who identify as genderqeer or non-binary, while also insisting on being referred to as ["they", "ze", "sie", "hir", "co", or "ey"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer#Pronouns_and_titles) do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. Equal treatment would be treating them like we treat everyone else. We don't call other people (singular)"they", and we sure as hell don't call other people "ze" or "hir". I have zero sympathy for people who insist on being referred to by made up pronouns.	If I call you "she" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that "he" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you "she". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them "he" or "she". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. You can then accommodate this preference or not, and live with the consequences of potentially being perceived as rude or insensitive by the person in question, or deal with the no doubt severe mental anguish that comes from using an unfamiliar word. But a man asking to be referred to as "he" instead of "she", which is considered perfectly natural and reasonable, is exactly the same as someone who is gender queer asking to be referred to by whatever pronoun they feel is appropriate. --- >If I call you "she" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that "he" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you "she". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them "he" or "she". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. Asking you to call me a "he" is asking you to please treat me equally to other men. Asking you to call me a "hir" is asking you to treat me differently from other people. That's the main difference. --- What if there were loads of genderqueer people who all wanted to be called “hir”? Would that be acceptable to you then? After all, you’d be treating them all the same.	If I call you a "she" instead of a "he", and you say you want me to refer to you as a "he" do you think you are demanding special treatment? If not, can you explain what the difference is between you and genderqueer people? --- Trans men want to be treated like other men. It would be equal treatment to treat them like other men. But genderqueer want to be treated as something entirely different. How can you treat someone equally and at the same time, treat them entirely different from anything else in society? --- Who is demanding to be treated both equally and differently here? You have two groups, each wanting to be addressed in a particular way, just like cis men want to be addressed in a particular way, and cis women want to be addressed in a particular way...	9fgvlr	CMV: People insisting on being referred to by genderqueer pronouns do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment.	While I can sympathize with mtf or ftm trans people, those who identify as genderqeer or non-binary, while also insisting on being referred to as ["they", "ze", "sie", "hir", "co", or "ey"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer#Pronouns_and_titles) do not want equal treatment, they want special treatment. Equal treatment would be treating them like we treat everyone else. We don't call other people (singular)"they", and we sure as hell don't call other people "ze" or "hir". I have zero sympathy for people who insist on being referred to by made up pronouns.	JoeVacs	3	3	[ { "author": "SanchoPanzasAss", "id": "e5wf7oy", "score": 25, "text": "If I call you \"she\" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that \"he\" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you \"she\". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them \"he\" or \"she\". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable. You can then accommodate this preference or not, and live with the consequences of potentially being perceived as rude or insensitive by the person in question, or deal with the no doubt severe mental anguish that comes from using an unfamiliar word. But a man asking to be referred to as \"he\" instead of \"she\", which is considered perfectly natural and reasonable, is exactly the same as someone who is gender queer asking to be referred to by whatever pronoun they feel is appropriate.", "timestamp": 1536841213 }, { "author": "JoeVacs", "id": "e5wfnf7", "score": 17, "text": ">If I call you \"she\" when you're a man, you might correct me and point out that \"he\" is a more appropriate term regarding your gender. I can then use the pronoun you prefer, or I can continue to call you \"she\". Likewise, there are people who don't identify as a man or a woman, and therefore it doesn't make sense from their perspective to call them \"he\" or \"she\". These people might create a new pronoun and ask you to use it to make them more comfortable.\n\nAsking you to call me a \"he\" is asking you to please treat me equally to other men. Asking you to call me a \"hir\" is asking you to treat me differently from other people. That's the main difference.", "timestamp": 1536841762 }, { "author": "h0m3r", "id": "e5wk419", "score": 24, "text": "What if there were loads of genderqueer people who all wanted to be called “hir”? Would that be acceptable to you then? After all, you’d be treating them all the same.", "timestamp": 1536846567 } ]	[ { "author": "5xum", "id": "e5wc3q0", "score": 2, "text": "If I call you a \"she\" instead of a \"he\", and you say you want me to refer to you as a \"he\" do you think you are demanding special treatment?\n\n \nIf not, can you explain what the difference is between you and genderqueer people?", "timestamp": 1536836671 }, { "author": "JoeVacs", "id": "e5wc9pc", "score": 2, "text": "Trans men want to be treated like other men. It would be equal treatment to treat them like other men. But genderqueer want to be treated as something entirely different. How can you treat someone equally and at the same time, treat them entirely different from anything else in society?", "timestamp": 1536836962 }, { "author": "5xum", "id": "e5wce9i", "score": 2, "text": "Who is demanding to be treated both equally and differently here? You have two groups, each wanting to be addressed in a particular way, just like cis men want to be addressed in a particular way, and cis women want to be addressed in a particular way...", "timestamp": 1536837171 } ]	[ "e5wf7oy", "e5wfnf7", "e5wk419" ]	[ "e5wc3q0", "e5wc9pc", "e5wce9i" ]
CMV: The Prophet Muhammad, claimed under Islam as the Most Moral of All Men, was a child rapist. The hadiths make it clear that he took his wife Aisha for marriage when she was 6. Many Muhammad apologists try to say she was actually much older and the Hadiths in question can't be trusted since they aren't "the word of Allah".. even though many are first hand accounts of the girl herself. By following the logic that the hadiths can't be trusted then we would have little to no knowledge of Muhammad himself and also getting rid of the hadiths turns the Quran into mound of disconnected contextless writings. The Hadith's in question : * Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 * 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim 8:3311 * A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud 4913 (Ahmad Hasan Ref) * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." (Sahih) Sunan an-Nasa'i 4:26:3380 * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I used to play with dolls when I was with the Messenger of Allah, and he used to bring my friends to me to play with me." (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:198 * Aisha said she was nine years old when the act of consummation took place and she had her dolls with her. Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 2, p 77 Many defenders also like to point to the context at the time being normal for child brides to take place. Agreed! It was! However again he is a prophet and he is the most moral of all men, there is no way to in todays day and age give him a pass and say its ok to that he only be held to the standards of the society around him at the time, He was founding an entire religion, he was a "holy man" so he should be rightly held to a higher standard, to which he has failed. \EDIT\ Please see my reply to u/[Subtleiaint](https://www.reddit.com/user/Subtleiaint/) for extensive additional sources \EDIT2\ Alright been replying for the better part of 4 hours, plenty of good discussions. Also I want to make it clear that while pointing out that Muhammad may have engaged in some very problematic practices, I'm not attempting to make a blanket commentary on modern day Islam or modern day Muslims, so for those of you that are trying, please stop turning it into that. That said I will have to come back later to continue the discussions and replies.	The arabic word hadith can basically be translated as hearsay. Its "authenticty" depends essentially on the teller's talent and creativity, and on the willingness and interests of the hearer to believe it or not. --- So do you think its ok to pick and choose hadiths to accept? Or are you saying its better to discount them all entirely? --- Some hadiths are known to be more credible than others. So it is true that some hadiths are widely accepted especially because they fall in line with the information/knowledge given in the Holy Qura'an while highly controversial ones are to be considered with a grain of salt. Having said that , you need to know that there are plenty of Muslims worldwide that discount hadiths entirely because of all the reasons people have mentioned in the comments i.e. they are hearsay, they were written decades later etc. So the Authenticity of the knowledge in the hadiths is instantly questionable.	[removed] --- "Don't mind me, just finding a good seat for the show" --- “Can you sit a bit lower, please. I can’t see over your head.”	mvqyoq	CMV: The Prophet Muhammad, claimed under Islam as the Most Moral of All Men, was a child rapist.	The hadiths make it clear that he took his wife Aisha for marriage when she was 6. Many Muhammad apologists try to say she was actually much older and the Hadiths in question can't be trusted since they aren't "the word of Allah".. even though many are first hand accounts of the girl herself. By following the logic that the hadiths can't be trusted then we would have little to no knowledge of Muhammad himself and also getting rid of the hadiths turns the Quran into mound of disconnected contextless writings. The Hadith's in question : * Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151 * 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. Sahih Muslim 8:3311 * A’ishah said : I used to play with dolls. Sometimes the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) entered upon me when the girls were with me. When he came in, they went out, and when he went out, they came in." Sunan Abu Dawud 4913 (Ahmad Hasan Ref) * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls." (Sahih) Sunan an-Nasa'i 4:26:3380 * It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "I used to play with dolls when I was with the Messenger of Allah, and he used to bring my friends to me to play with me." (Sahih) Sunan Ibn Majah 3:9:198 * Aisha said she was nine years old when the act of consummation took place and she had her dolls with her. Mishkat al-Masabih, Vol. 2, p 77 Many defenders also like to point to the context at the time being normal for child brides to take place. Agreed! It was! However again he is a prophet and he is the most moral of all men, there is no way to in todays day and age give him a pass and say its ok to that he only be held to the standards of the society around him at the time, He was founding an entire religion, he was a "holy man" so he should be rightly held to a higher standard, to which he has failed. \EDIT\ Please see my reply to u/[Subtleiaint](https://www.reddit.com/user/Subtleiaint/) for extensive additional sources \EDIT2\ Alright been replying for the better part of 4 hours, plenty of good discussions. Also I want to make it clear that while pointing out that Muhammad may have engaged in some very problematic practices, I'm not attempting to make a blanket commentary on modern day Islam or modern day Muslims, so for those of you that are trying, please stop turning it into that. That said I will have to come back later to continue the discussions and replies.	Drewsef916	3	3	[ { "author": "MappleSyrup13", "id": "gvdupas", "score": 18, "text": "The arabic word hadith can basically be translated as hearsay. Its \"authenticty\" depends essentially on the teller's talent and creativity, and on the willingness and interests of the hearer to believe it or not.", "timestamp": 1619047995 }, { "author": "Drewsef916", "id": "gve04v8", "score": 14, "text": "So do you think its ok to pick and choose hadiths to accept? Or are you saying its better to discount them all entirely?", "timestamp": 1619050688 }, { "author": "seranapoetry", "id": "gve3ha2", "score": 23, "text": "Some hadiths are known to be more credible than others. So it is true that some hadiths are widely accepted especially because they fall in line with the information/knowledge given in the Holy Qura'an while highly controversial ones are to be considered with a grain of salt. \n\nHaving said that , you need to know that there are plenty of Muslims worldwide that discount hadiths entirely because of all the reasons people have mentioned in the comments i.e. they are hearsay, they were written decades later etc. So the Authenticity of the knowledge in the hadiths is instantly questionable.", "timestamp": 1619052366 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvdlyzj", "score": 4, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1619043735 }, { "author": "Alabane", "id": "gvdm6yp", "score": 2, "text": "\"Don't mind me, just finding a good seat for the show\"", "timestamp": 1619043842 }, { "author": "Mkwdr", "id": "gvdmdh6", "score": 3, "text": "“Can you sit a bit lower, please. I can’t see over your head.”", "timestamp": 1619043929 } ]	[ "gvdupas", "gve04v8", "gve3ha2" ]	[ "gvdlyzj", "gvdm6yp", "gvdmdh6" ]
CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible. I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	How do you define "may not be reversible"? Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go? How do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. --- > Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Thank you. I appreciate having to learn something new. I suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally. > It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. δ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆. It is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet. I really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please. --- I don't know, it's like the optimistic version of this quote from House MD: "I believe an alcoholic who never drinks again just didn't live long enough." Personally I'm in the same boat as you about a few things. I've failed to keep myself out of my mother's patterns, and have almost entirely lost hope that I will. But also... I think that's not a logical place to land. It's definitely not a helpful place to land, that's for sure. But more importantly, there's no tangible reason to think that I can't be one of those people who turns things around. --- Loved House, never heard that quote. Interesting thought. I used to tell myself, my doc, even a trusted family member that I knew it was an excuse. I even said I wouldn't hold it against myself because I was only using it as an excuse. It was simply tonight, looking back on three free months (on top of 8 years.) I had three months to do anything I wanted, nothing but free time other than 2 hrs a day total of driving, school and driving. Looking back and having accomplished nothing, I really needed an explanation. --- I'm not sure if this fits in the rules of this sub, but have you ever been evaluated for ADD or other issues with executive functioning? There were a couple things that pinged my radar, but something about this comment is really setting off some bells. See if this page is at all helpful: http://www.ldonline.org/article/29122. It definitely seems like you have trouble with initiating tasks, which is one of the big ways my ADD manifests itself. I can recommend a book called "The ADD-friendly guide to organizing your life." But at the end of the day, it's up to you to develop coping strategies. Executive function is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it will get. You may never get to Olympic powerlifter levels, but one day you'll be able to do a full push-up :)	Wait... you don't brush your teeth? Ever? I think living life with the belief that you're never going to develop new habits is actively stopping you from creating them yourself. Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. Leave post-it notes for yourself as a reminder. Incentivize the act. I refuse to believe that a grown adult doesn't have the capability to complete a task as simple as brushing your teeth. People have to form new habits all the time, it's not like the skills you learn when you're a child are the only skills that you'll ever employ in your life. I didn't learn to start paying off my credit card bills when I was 10, but I do it regularly as an adult. Same with grocery shopping and keeping a stocked pantry. Sure, you might have had a shitty upbringing, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that you're screwed for life. --- I think the last time I might have brushed my teeth is a month or so ago. I have specific dental floss, one of the ultrasonic toothbrushes, a Waterpik flosser. I even enjoy doing it. > Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. That's the problem. Doing it once or twice is easy. Actually keeping the habit is hard. When I first noticed the problem (with my psychiatrist) I truly believed in what was offered to me. Small changes, add habits over time, mindfulness, daily planning the day before. Eventually, it just got to be too much. I would even sit in the chair at night and think to myself "I should be doing something right now. Anything." I really want to believe it's possible, but I've had nothing but time over the last three months. No work obligations, almost no school obligations, and nothing but time to correct. I don't even really remember them going by. --- I mean, if you've been seeing a psychiatrist then there's nothing really that I can say to help remedy this. However, do you really believe that you haven't picked up a single habit since you were a kid? How do you function as an adult? --- Sadly, I am not seeing a psychiatrist anymore. Long story. I really cannot say I've picked up any habits since I was a child. I just really move from one thing to the next. The nice thing is that the one job I really kept together (that got me back to school) really required me to 'react' more than 'plan.' So it didn't really require any habits, simply to respond to whatever happened that day. As far as functioning as an adult, what all does it really take? Getting up on time is kind of a habit I suppose, but it's more just going to sleep (or staying up all night.) Schoolwork is normally given a due date in-person, and I don't really plan on a time to do it. Just whenever it's due. Actually, how do I function as an adult? Barely. That's how. That is also terrifying, and it's what I want to change. --- You're right about getting up on time, that's a habit that pretty much every functioning adult has to learn. I'm just assuming here, but you probably had a routine while you were working, such as waking up on time, looking presentable, eating, commuting to work, commuting back home, eating again. Do you pay off your bills? Go grocery shopping? Even if you've gotten into the habit of procrastinating your schoolwork before it's due, you still do it - that's a habit. I'm sorry that things appear to be hopeless right now, but I think that you have the mental capability to develop your own habits. Maybe it might take an unconventional method, or you need someone close to literally give you a kick in the ass and nag you until you complete every small action, but I think it's possible. Also, did you talk to your former psychiatrist about potentially suffering from depression or anxiety?	6qlmnn	CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible.	I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ThePathLaid	5	5	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dky85xe", "score": 4, "text": "How do you define \"may not be reversible\"?\n\nEssentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go?\n\nHow do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. ", "timestamp": 1501470269 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8yx4", "score": 3, "text": "> Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist?\n\nThank you. I appreciate having to learn something new.\n\nI suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally.\n\n> It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life.\n\nδ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆.\n\nIt is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet.\n\nI really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please.", "timestamp": 1501471473 }, { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dkyaiww", "score": 1, "text": "I don't know, it's like the optimistic version of this quote from House MD: \"I believe an alcoholic who never drinks again just didn't live long enough.\"\n\nPersonally I'm in the same boat as you about a few things. I've failed to keep myself out of my mother's patterns, and have almost entirely lost hope that I will. But also... I think that's not a logical place to land. It's definitely not a helpful place to land, that's for sure. But more importantly, there's no tangible reason to think that I can't be one of those people who turns things around.", "timestamp": 1501473892 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dkyatp5", "score": 1, "text": "Loved House, never heard that quote. Interesting thought.\n\nI used to tell myself, my doc, even a trusted family member that I knew it was an excuse. I even said I wouldn't hold it against myself because I was only using it as an excuse.\n\nIt was simply tonight, looking back on three free months (on top of 8 years.) I had three months to do anything I wanted, nothing but free time other than 2 hrs a day total of driving, school and driving. \n\nLooking back and having accomplished nothing, I really needed an explanation.", "timestamp": 1501474339 }, { "author": "bluebasset", "id": "dkyd6vj", "score": 2, "text": "I'm not sure if this fits in the rules of this sub, but have you ever been evaluated for ADD or other issues with executive functioning? There were a couple things that pinged my radar, but something about this comment is really setting off some bells. See if this page is at all helpful: http://www.ldonline.org/article/29122. It definitely seems like you have trouble with initiating tasks, which is one of the big ways my ADD manifests itself.\n\nI can recommend a book called \"The ADD-friendly guide to organizing your life.\" But at the end of the day, it's up to you to develop coping strategies. Executive function is like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it will get. You may never get to Olympic powerlifter levels, but one day you'll be able to do a full push-up :)", "timestamp": 1501478507 } ]	[ { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dky7yz3", "score": 43, "text": "Wait... you don't brush your teeth? Ever?\n\nI think living life with the belief that you're never going to develop new habits is actively stopping you from creating them yourself. Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth. Leave post-it notes for yourself as a reminder. Incentivize the act. I refuse to believe that a grown adult doesn't have the capability to complete a task as simple as brushing your teeth. People have to form new habits all the time, it's not like the skills you learn when you're a child are the only skills that you'll ever employ in your life. I didn't learn to start paying off my credit card bills when I was 10, but I do it regularly as an adult. Same with grocery shopping and keeping a stocked pantry. Sure, you might have had a shitty upbringing, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that you're screwed for life. ", "timestamp": 1501469990 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8ro8", "score": 7, "text": "I think the last time I might have brushed my teeth is a month or so ago.\n\nI have specific dental floss, one of the ultrasonic toothbrushes, a Waterpik flosser. I even enjoy doing it.\n\n> Stop blaming your upbringing, go out and buy a toothbrush and start brushing your teeth.\n\nThat's the problem. Doing it once or twice is easy. Actually keeping the habit is hard.\n\nWhen I first noticed the problem (with my psychiatrist) I truly believed in what was offered to me. Small changes, add habits over time, mindfulness, daily planning the day before.\n\nEventually, it just got to be too much. I would even sit in the chair at night and think to myself \"I should be doing something right now. Anything.\"\n\nI really want to believe it's possible, but I've had nothing but time over the last three months. No work obligations, almost no school obligations, and nothing but time to correct.\n\nI don't even really remember them going by.", "timestamp": 1501471163 }, { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dky9l9f", "score": 8, "text": "I mean, if you've been seeing a psychiatrist then there's nothing really that I can say to help remedy this. However, do you really believe that you haven't picked up a single habit since you were a kid? How do you function as an adult? ", "timestamp": 1501472431 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky9swh", "score": 2, "text": "Sadly, I am not seeing a psychiatrist anymore. Long story.\n\nI really cannot say I've picked up any habits since I was a child. I just really move from one thing to the next.\n\nThe nice thing is that the one job I really kept together (that got me back to school) really required me to 'react' more than 'plan.' So it didn't really require any habits, simply to respond to whatever happened that day.\n\nAs far as functioning as an adult, what all does it really take? Getting up on time is kind of a habit I suppose, but it's more just going to sleep (or staying up all night.) Schoolwork is normally given a due date in-person, and I don't really plan on a time to do it. Just whenever it's due.\n\nActually, how do I function as an adult? Barely. That's how.\n\nThat is also terrifying, and it's what I want to change.", "timestamp": 1501472759 }, { "author": "bad__hombres", "id": "dkyadlu", "score": 3, "text": "You're right about getting up on time, that's a habit that pretty much every functioning adult has to learn. I'm just assuming here, but you probably had a routine while you were working, such as waking up on time, looking presentable, eating, commuting to work, commuting back home, eating again. Do you pay off your bills? Go grocery shopping? Even if you've gotten into the habit of procrastinating your schoolwork before it's due, you still do it - that's a habit. \n\nI'm sorry that things appear to be hopeless right now, but I think that you have the mental capability to develop your own habits. Maybe it might take an unconventional method, or you need someone close to literally give you a kick in the ass and nag you until you complete every small action, but I think it's possible. Also, did you talk to your former psychiatrist about potentially suffering from depression or anxiety? ", "timestamp": 1501473675 } ]	[ "dky85xe", "dky8yx4", "dkyaiww", "dkyatp5", "dkyd6vj" ]	[ "dky7yz3", "dky8ro8", "dky9l9f", "dky9swh", "dkyadlu" ]
CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible. I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. While it's true that children that come from households with good parents statistically have better study/hygiene habits than children who do not, you have to realize it's not the end all be all. Meeting the right friends at school makes a huge impact on your social skills/study skills/hygiene and generally how your carry yourself. > If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) It's not impossible to change a bad habit. It's literally a personal choice. You can't blame other people or the environment for your own short comings. Because pointing fingers at factors that aren't in your control doesn't get you anywhere. It's up to you in how you value certain skills and habits if it's worthwhile enough for you to invest time improving and/or changing yourself for the better. No one in this entire universe can force you to do that. It's your choice. > If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. And whats wrong about this? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so. If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. > The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. That's where you're wrong. If you're a heavy drug addict or alcoholic, you aren't dropping that addiction by a flick of a wrist or simply by being motivated. Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. > This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. This is where I agree. But this isn't because you're conditioned to naturally fail or make bad habits, but because you actively choose to keep making poor choices or prevent yourself from getting out of your comfort zone. ---------------------------------- Listen. I'm pretty sure you didn't come to this sub-reddit because you actually think that because you've never been pressured to make study habits or work on personal hygiene is someone else's or something else's fault. I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. You know why I believe this? Because this was me back in highschool. Horrible hygiene, terrible study habits and horribly in-personable. But I'll be damned if I blamed my parents, my friends, my school or that hot chick in grade 9 who turned me down because she thought I was a loser. My martial arts teacher always tells me that you can't and you shouldn't get frustrated or angry on things that are out of your control. In this case your childhood environment. Instead work on what IS under your control and go from there. I didn't sugar coat anything because I believe an honest CMV deserves an honest CMV reply. I almost get the feeling you came here to try and run away from what you know you have to do and thought that maybe there was some magical way you could turn yourself overnight. You know that's bullshit. It's a process. Take one step at a time. Because believe me, the first step is always the hardest. You don't take a shower every day? okay. Every other day. And work your way into everyday. Set a time. Evening? Morning? You don't brush your teeth everyday? Okay. Try every morning before you go to work. Just once a day or once every other day if it's really going to kill you. What you need to understand ultimately is that, you don't need to take 5 steps to start changing yourself. One will get the ball rolling. But you need to understand it's not enough. First you start off small and you work your way up. I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. But don't ask them if you don't have the fucking balls to actually do what you set out to do. Seriously consider what you want to do first. --- The beginning is obviously true, so I want to address some things > And whats wrong about this [profiting from that information]? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so. I didn't argue that it was wrong. I simply said that it was not really evident anywhere. I have enough money that I would be happy to pay for a guaranteed way to make a difference. > If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. It's just been a lot of one steps. Over years. With no change. > Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. I assure you that many of these changes are things I want nothing more than to do differently. > I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. This I don't agree with, but I feel like you did repond to what I was actually saying. I know my view was wrong, and genuinely wanted it attacked. I haven't been able to shake that feeling that there is nothing I can do (and I'm still not sure) but I wanted someone to be honest, and this sub is plenty good at that. > I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. This is the difficult part. I don't have friends anymore. I asked my wife once, and she said she would help. She honestly just wants to be a nice person, and really won't get on my case about anything. Still giving you a δ, because you did honestly provide the kind of information I needed to ∆ my view a little and, with any luck, try again. --- Allow yourself to make mistakes without getting upset. Studies show people who get upset with themselves for making a mistake are more likely to fail again. Better to simply say, oops let's try again. While you are working on step one forget about the other steps. Habits can be difficult to break so the key is to create a new habit. Try to make your step ones last for a month or even three.	How do you define "may not be reversible"? Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go? How do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. --- > Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Thank you. I appreciate having to learn something new. I suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally. > It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. δ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆. It is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet. I really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/radialomens ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/radialomens)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "radialomens" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6qlmnn	CMV: I believe that the way you are raised can have long-lasting negative repercussions, that may not be reversible.	I have created this post specifically for myself and will provide personal context (as it does influence my view.) I will also provide a generalized version for discussion. ###Personal Context >I was raised with the freedom to never have to do homework. I now have no study habits as a young adult, and cannot focus on a book or written material. I was never raised with concern to my hygeine, and as a young adult I still do not brush my teeth, and sometimes do not shower. I was raised by a man that never did anything but sit at a computer all day. Though I loved being outside as a child, here I sit. >Even though I maintain awareness of my failures, I have yet to make dedicated change on any of them. The hardest part of anything is maintaining a daily routine. I even thought seeking outside help would work, but my significant other seems to have 'lowered' to my level and does not really force me to do anything. > I really looked for an outside opinion. Therapy, psychiatric help, medication, books. I own a wealth of books intended to fix laziness/procrastination, or individual habits. ##Generalized points of my current view: * Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable. * If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment) * If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens. * The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built. * This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ThePathLaid	3	3	[ { "author": "deathaddict", "id": "dkya3pr", "score": 18, "text": "> Children are meant to be instilled with good habits early on in their life. They are eager to learn, often by example, and easily impressionable.\n\nWhile it's true that children that come from households with good parents statistically have better study/hygiene habits than children who do not, you have to realize it's not the end all be all. \n\nMeeting the right friends at school makes a huge impact on your social skills/study skills/hygiene and generally how your carry yourself. \n\n> If these habits are not instilled, or worse yet replaced with bad habits, it may be impossible to make change without severe outside influence (military training/other forced internment)\n\nIt's not impossible to change a bad habit. It's literally a personal choice. You can't blame other people or the environment for your own short comings. Because pointing fingers at factors that aren't in your control doesn't get you anywhere. \n\nIt's up to you in how you value certain skills and habits if it's worthwhile enough for you to invest time improving and/or changing yourself for the better. No one in this entire universe can force you to do that. It's your choice. \n\n> If there were any reasonable way for an individual to correct these deficiencies, it is the nature of the general public to either profit from it or share it. One of the other almost universally happens.\n\nAnd whats wrong about this? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so.\n\nIf a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time. \n\n> The general instruction is to just do it. I imagine this works for someone that just needs the inspiration to do the right thing, but doesn't seem appropriate for 10-20 years (or more) of bad habits having been built.\n\nThat's where you're wrong. If you're a heavy drug addict or alcoholic, you aren't dropping that addiction by a flick of a wrist or simply by being motivated. Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily. \n\n> This is usually the point where someone might make an immediate action, but I believe when you are raised in this manner (as opposed to acquiring bad habits) you will naturally fail to maintain them.\n\nThis is where I agree. But this isn't because you're conditioned to naturally fail or make bad habits, but because you actively choose to keep making poor choices or prevent yourself from getting out of your comfort zone. \n\n----------------------------------\n\nListen. I'm pretty sure you didn't come to this sub-reddit because you actually think that because you've never been pressured to make study habits or work on personal hygiene is someone else's or something else's fault.\n\nI'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas. \n\nYou know why I believe this? Because this was me back in highschool. Horrible hygiene, terrible study habits and horribly in-personable. But I'll be damned if I blamed my parents, my friends, my school or that hot chick in grade 9 who turned me down because she thought I was a loser. \n\nMy martial arts teacher always tells me that you can't and you shouldn't get frustrated or angry on things that are out of your control. In this case your childhood environment. Instead work on what IS under your control and go from there.\n\nI didn't sugar coat anything because I believe an honest CMV deserves an honest CMV reply. \n\nI almost get the feeling you came here to try and run away from what you know you have to do and thought that maybe there was some magical way you could turn yourself overnight. \n\nYou know that's bullshit.\n\nIt's a process. Take one step at a time. Because believe me, the first step is always the hardest. \n\nYou don't take a shower every day? okay. Every other day. And work your way into everyday. Set a time. Evening? Morning? \n\nYou don't brush your teeth everyday? Okay. Try every morning before you go to work. Just once a day or once every other day if it's really going to kill you. \n\nWhat you need to understand ultimately is that, you don't need to take 5 steps to start changing yourself. One will get the ball rolling. But you need to understand it's not enough. First you start off small and you work your way up. \n\nI believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them. But don't ask them if you don't have the fucking balls to actually do what you set out to do. Seriously consider what you want to do first. \n", "timestamp": 1501473248 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dkyaidy", "score": 3, "text": "The beginning is obviously true, so I want to address some things\n\n> And whats wrong about this [profiting from that information]? Help isn't always free and if you want to change something about yourself you have to be willing to make a sacrifice to do so.\n\nI didn't argue that it was wrong. I simply said that it was not really evident anywhere. I have enough money that I would be happy to pay for a guaranteed way to make a difference.\n\n> If a goal can be reached without any effort, then it's not really a worthwhile goal anyway because it's too easy. You aren't going to suddenly pick up good hygiene/study skills overnight. It's a process. One step at a time.\n\nIt's just been a lot of one steps. Over years. With no change.\n\n> Being motivated isn't good enough. You actually have to want to do it. It's all about taking the first few steps to get your feet in the water. The rest comes easily.\n\nI assure you that many of these changes are things I want nothing more than to do differently.\n\n> I'm pretty sure at some level you know its your fault that you have bad habits, and you're just looking for someone else or something else to take the blame for your poor life decisions in certain areas.\n\nThis I don't agree with, but I feel like you did repond to what I was actually saying. I know my view was wrong, and genuinely wanted it attacked. I haven't been able to shake that feeling that there is nothing I can do (and I'm still not sure) but I wanted someone to be honest, and this sub is plenty good at that.\n\n> I believe you're strong enough to do this on your own, but if you need your wife/significant other or other family/friends to help you take the baby steps. Ask them.\n\nThis is the difficult part. I don't have friends anymore. I asked my wife once, and she said she would help. She honestly just wants to be a nice person, and really won't get on my case about anything.\n\nStill giving you a δ, because you did honestly provide the kind of information I needed to ∆ my view a little and, with any luck, try again.", "timestamp": 1501473871 }, { "author": "threecharles", "id": "dkye813", "score": 5, "text": "Allow yourself to make mistakes without getting upset. Studies show people who get upset with themselves for making a mistake are more likely to fail again. Better to simply say, oops let's try again.\n\nWhile you are working on step one forget about the other steps. Habits can be difficult to break so the key is to create a new habit. Try to make your step ones last for a month or even three.", "timestamp": 1501480554 } ]	[ { "author": "radialomens", "id": "dky85xe", "score": 4, "text": "How do you define \"may not be reversible\"?\n\nEssentially what I mean is, are you a determinist? Do you think that any failure that occurs was inevitable from the outset, because that is how things were set up to go?\n\nHow do you determine whether any specific behavior by a specific individual is irreversible, and not that they haven't tried the right thing yet? It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life. ", "timestamp": 1501470269 }, { "author": "ThePathLaid", "id": "dky8yx4", "score": 3, "text": "> Essentially what I mean is, are you a determinist?\n\nThank you. I appreciate having to learn something new.\n\nI suppose that, based on the premise I gave in my view, this would be deterministic. I do not know if I can speak personally, or if (like other subreddits) I have to speak generally.\n\n> It's demonstrable that some people can break habit instilled from early childhood, but it often takes many attempts to do so, sometime not being achieved until late in life.\n\nδ, no matter how small this might be it is still a ∆.\n\nIt is extremely frustrating for me to accept that I cannot know how long I have to wait, or how many times I might have to try, it just might not have happened yet.\n\nI really hope there is more to discuss with someone, because I genuinely hoped to correct these issues before I am a parent. I would despise myself to pass these on to my kids, but at the moment I am (selfishly) only discussing personal improvement please.", "timestamp": 1501471473 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dky8zpt", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/radialomens ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/radialomens)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"radialomens\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1501471506 } ]	[ "dkya3pr", "dkyaidy", "dkye813" ]	[ "dky85xe", "dky8yx4", "dky8zpt" ]
CMV:North America should legalize prostitution to keep sex workers safe. Legalizing prostitution will create a safer environment for sex workers and its consumers. With legalization there will be safety standards and regulations including annual health check ups which will lower the spread of STDs. It will also eliminate the criminal elements of prostitution such as physical abuse to sex workers from pimps and consumers. With proper permits this should also prevent the trafficking of sex slaves. Having a governing body will also make it harder for anyone underage to get into prostitution (identification & permits required). Legalizing prostitution will shed light on the negative stigmas around it and give sex workers their civil and labour rights as a person and as a worker. Sex work may not be an ideal job for many people; however, those who choose to be in this industry should still have the same labour rights. EDIT --- Decriminalization over legalization, but still maintain the position of not illegal out right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	This will be an easy one, because everything you just said is straight-up wrong, as we can tell from the data of western european prostitution laws. [Study: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/study-legalizing-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking/) [The law and economics of international sex slavery: prostitution laws and trafficking for sexual exploitation ](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10657-011-9232-0) You are taking it for granted, that there is a sufficient supply of willing sex workers to satisfy all the demand that would be raised by the option of legal procuring, and also that regulations would be efficient at separating legal prostitution from sex trafficking. In practice, countries where prostitution is illegal, have a significantly easier way to shut down sex trafficking nodes, by targeting anything that looks like a brothel, while in countries where it is legal, sex trafficking can be more easily disguised as a legal establishment. This is a recurring problem with trying to clean up any kind of trafficking, where the legal alternative alone couldn't fulfill the rising demand, but it's existence makes the illegal alternative's nature easier to cover up. --- Great response thank you. In your source, it's also noted that "The authors note that legalization could have other positive effects, such making it easier for prostitutes to seek legal or medical help and decreasing rates of abuse and sexually-transmitted disease. " There is the argument of making the cover up easier, and that's certainly something I didn't consider. But I suppose the counter would be, why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available. --- > why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available. Are they? You keep presuming that there are enough women interested at all in being prostitutes, to satisfy the men interested in frequenting brothels. In any business, the more the demand outnumbers the total supply, the more likely it is that people will start turning to seedy inferior replacements. In value-neutral job fields, you can at least expect the suppy to grow eventually. If there are so few doctors that people turn to seedy back alley ones in desperation, then more young people will study to be doctors as it's lucrative. But what if for most women, being a prostitute is just plainly a hard "no"? Then there you are, a man, believing that you have every legal right to visit a brothel, and then there is a pimp, recently gone on the straight and narrow, who already has all his girls accounted for and some empty bedrooms to spare. But he still has all the former business associates, who can sell him some drug addicts fro the streets, some illegal immigrants under fear of deportation, some well-groomed teenage girls with fake IDs, etc. You, the client wouldn't need to enter a building that says "ILLEGAL SEX SLAVE BROTHEL" on the front, just turn a blind eye over the fact that most of the nominally proper establishments are rumored to have a corrupt underbelly. --- I see your point. Would you consider an industry that would crack down on cleaning it up if legalized, would employ legit managers instead of reusing the same old pimps that may have past ties in criminal activities. Perhaps that's too optimistic on my part and I do understand about your point of turning a blind eye. Let me put it this way. Prostitution continues to grow regardless if its legalized or not. But I suppose the difference would be that if it is, it could at least help a lot of sex workers. I will concede that it might not help all of them, but is it all or nothing to make it safer even for the ones that would benefit from legalization? --- For the reasons Genoscythe_ described, legalizing prostitution isn't the best way to make prostitution safer for women. What actually makes women safer is the Swedish system, in which it's illegal to purchase sex, but legal to sell it. In that situation, women can call the police if they feel unsafe without having to worry about going to jail. When prostitution is completely illegal, police waste their time arresting the same prostitutes again and again (not to mention, you also get ethically dubious situations where undercover cops have sex with prostitutes before arresting them). Whereas when buying sex is illegal, misogynist attitudes are changed and the demand for prostitution declines, leading to a broad decline in prostitution over time.	Sex workers are quite often not going into the industry because they want to, they are forced into it through desperation from a drug addiction or some other need for money. Pimps will literally hunt down women who are at risk; runaways, people with anxiety etc. And get them hooked on drugs or alcohol. It will not protect them from abuse from pimps, and it will also not protect the underrage women going into the trades - if anything legalizing prostitution will protect the pimps and make it more difficult. What ought to be done about this issue is recognize why women(and sometimes men, not as common) are going into this and being stringed along, rather than just legalizing the abuse. There are some individuals who choose to do sex work, and this is perfectly fine in my opinion. But a woman who chooses to do sex work because she wants to as a job to make a living and a heroine addicted woman who chooses to do sex work out of a need for their drug fix are not in the same position. Hang on let me look for this Noam Chomsky quote on the porn industry. Edit: Here ”Suppose there’s a starving child in the slums, and you say “well, I’ll give you food if you’ll let me abuse you.” Suppose—well, there happen to be laws against child abuse, fortunately—but suppose someone were to give you an argument. Well, you know, after all a child’s starving otherwise, so you’re taking away their chance to get some food if you ban abuse. I mean, is that an argument?” --- That's why you regulate it. Most of these problems (like drugs) are caused by it being illegal in the first place. Abused prostitutes will be able to get legal protection, underaged prostitutes will be more easily discovered, STDs spread through prostitution will be more easily prevented with being legal etc. It also reduces the rape. Most importantly consenting adults should be free to do what they want to do in the bedroom. Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense. --- > Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense. A porn video can be viewed by millions. If one in a thousand women are interested in sex work, and nine in ten men are interested in consuming it, then porn can still offer a viable exchange. The problem with prostitution is, that it skyrockets the number of men who would be interested in safely paying fore sex, but there simply aren't all that many women willing to do it. But as long as the demand is there, the system incentivizes sex traffickers to gather even more victims than before, and the fact that legal prostitution exists, makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight. If any john can claim as a defense that he assumed the establishment's papers were in order, or if a random police patrol doesn't see women standing on the side of a country road as inherently worthy of investigating, and so on, that just means more opportunities to conduct operations with dubiously consenting women, as well as outright sex slavery. --- Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia? You don't stop sex trafficking by random patrols investigating women standing on the side of a country road. You do this via audits and checks, which is something you can do if legalised. Audits are far more reliable than random patrols. Edit: A porn video is viewed by millions because it's far more easily accessible. Just because more guys watch porn than pay for a prostitute doesn't mean that porn is somehow that much different. Again look at Australia --- > Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). The thing about drugs, is that even if it would, the legal supply could just be increased with the legal demand. The problem is if you try to clean up an industry, where your goal is explicitly to reduce the supply. For example, the same problem shows up with ivory. If you try to legalize the ivory trade but your ultimate goal is to restrict it's scope and save some elephants, then the poachers and smugglers won't actually cooperate with you, they will just exploit the cover of some of the ivory now being legal, to pass off theirs as part of that, to great effect. > Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia? Absolutely we do, I linked to the studies in my top level post to op.	871ehj	CMV:North America should legalize prostitution to keep sex workers safe.	Legalizing prostitution will create a safer environment for sex workers and its consumers. With legalization there will be safety standards and regulations including annual health check ups which will lower the spread of STDs. It will also eliminate the criminal elements of prostitution such as physical abuse to sex workers from pimps and consumers. With proper permits this should also prevent the trafficking of sex slaves. Having a governing body will also make it harder for anyone underage to get into prostitution (identification & permits required). Legalizing prostitution will shed light on the negative stigmas around it and give sex workers their civil and labour rights as a person and as a worker. Sex work may not be an ideal job for many people; however, those who choose to be in this industry should still have the same labour rights. EDIT --- Decriminalization over legalization, but still maintain the position of not illegal out right. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	miss-go	5	5	[ { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9jhms", "score": 665, "text": "This will be an easy one, because everything you just said is straight-up wrong, as we can tell from the data of western european prostitution laws. \n\n[Study: Legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking](http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17/study-legalizing-prostitution-increases-human-trafficking/)\n\n[The law and economics of international sex slavery: prostitution laws and trafficking for sexual exploitation\n](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10657-011-9232-0)\n\nYou are taking it for granted, that there is a sufficient supply of willing sex workers to satisfy all the demand that would be raised by the option of legal procuring, and also that regulations would be efficient at separating legal prostitution from sex trafficking. \n\nIn practice, countries where prostitution is illegal, have a significantly easier way to shut down sex trafficking nodes, by targeting anything that looks like a brothel, while in countries where it is legal, sex trafficking can be more easily disguised as a legal establishment.\n\nThis is a recurring problem with trying to clean up any kind of trafficking, where the legal alternative alone couldn't fulfill the rising demand, but it's existence makes the illegal alternative's nature easier to cover up. \n", "timestamp": 1521996607 }, { "author": "miss-go", "id": "dw9ok3b", "score": 152, "text": "Great response thank you.\n\nIn your source, it's also noted that\n\n\"The authors note that legalization could have other positive effects, such making it easier for prostitutes to seek legal or medical help and decreasing rates of abuse and sexually-transmitted disease. \"\n\nThere is the argument of making the cover up easier, and that's certainly something I didn't consider.\n\nBut I suppose the counter would be, why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available.\n", "timestamp": 1522002032 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9pjkg", "score": 151, "text": "> why go the route of seeking the illegal alternatives when, the legal alternatives are readily available.\n\nAre they? \n\nYou keep presuming that there are enough women interested at all in being prostitutes, to satisfy the men interested in frequenting brothels. \n\nIn any business, the more the demand outnumbers the total supply, the more likely it is that people will start turning to seedy inferior replacements. In value-neutral job fields, you can at least expect the suppy to grow eventually. If there are so few doctors that people turn to seedy back alley ones in desperation, then more young people will study to be doctors as it's lucrative. \n\nBut what if for most women, being a prostitute is just plainly a hard \"no\"? \n\nThen there you are, a man, believing that you have every legal right to visit a brothel, and then there is a pimp, recently gone on the straight and narrow, who already has all his girls accounted for and some empty bedrooms to spare. But he still has all the former business associates, who can sell him some drug addicts fro the streets, some illegal immigrants under fear of deportation, some well-groomed teenage girls with fake IDs, etc.\n\nYou, the client wouldn't need to enter a building that says \"ILLEGAL SEX SLAVE BROTHEL\" on the front, just turn a blind eye over the fact that most of the nominally proper establishments are rumored to have a corrupt underbelly. ", "timestamp": 1522003088 }, { "author": "miss-go", "id": "dw9qpu9", "score": 29, "text": "I see your point. Would you consider an industry that would crack down on cleaning it up if legalized, would employ legit managers instead of reusing the same old pimps that may have past ties in criminal activities. Perhaps that's too optimistic on my part and I do understand about your point of turning a blind eye.\n\nLet me put it this way. Prostitution continues to grow regardless if its legalized or not. But I suppose the difference would be that if it is, it could at least help a lot of sex workers. I will concede that it might not help all of them, but is it all or nothing to make it safer even for the ones that would benefit from legalization?", "timestamp": 1522004366 }, { "author": "therinnovator", "id": "dw9ry1j", "score": 127, "text": "For the reasons Genoscythe_ described, legalizing prostitution isn't the best way to make prostitution safer for women.\n\nWhat actually makes women safer is the Swedish system, in which it's illegal to purchase sex, but legal to sell it. In that situation, women can call the police if they feel unsafe without having to worry about going to jail. When prostitution is completely illegal, police waste their time arresting the same prostitutes again and again (not to mention, you also get ethically dubious situations where undercover cops have sex with prostitutes before arresting them). Whereas when buying sex is illegal, misogynist attitudes are changed and the demand for prostitution declines, leading to a broad decline in prostitution over time.", "timestamp": 1522005700 } ]	[ { "author": "Electra_Cute", "id": "dw9iog9", "score": 35, "text": "Sex workers are quite often not going into the industry because they want to, they are forced into it through desperation from a drug addiction or some other need for money. Pimps will literally hunt down women who are at risk; runaways, people with anxiety etc. And get them hooked on drugs or alcohol. It will not protect them from abuse from pimps, and it will also not protect the underrage women going into the trades - if anything legalizing prostitution will protect the pimps and make it more difficult.\n\nWhat ought to be done about this issue is recognize why women(and sometimes men, not as common) are going into this and being stringed along, rather than just legalizing the abuse.\n\nThere are some individuals who choose to do sex work, and this is perfectly fine in my opinion. But a woman who chooses to do sex work because she wants to as a job to make a living and a heroine addicted woman who chooses to do sex work out of a need for their drug fix are not in the same position. \n\nHang on let me look for this Noam Chomsky quote on the porn industry.\n\nEdit: Here\n\n”Suppose there’s a starving child in the slums, and you say “well, I’ll give you food if you’ll let me abuse you.” Suppose—well, there happen to be laws against child abuse, fortunately—but suppose someone were to give you an argument. Well, you know, after all a child’s starving otherwise, so you’re taking away their chance to get some food if you ban abuse. I mean, is that an argument?”", "timestamp": 1521995733 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9j8pz", "score": 24, "text": "That's why you regulate it. Most of these problems (like drugs) are caused by it being illegal in the first place. Abused prostitutes will be able to get legal protection, underaged prostitutes will be more easily discovered, STDs spread through prostitution will be more easily prevented with being legal etc. It also reduces the rape. \n\nMost importantly consenting adults should be free to do what they want to do in the bedroom. Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense.", "timestamp": 1521996343 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9k0ze", "score": 25, "text": "> Why is it legal to pay someone to have sex only if you agree to film it. That makes zero sense.\n\nA porn video can be viewed by millions. If one in a thousand women are interested in sex work, and nine in ten men are interested in consuming it, then porn can still offer a viable exchange. \n\nThe problem with prostitution is, that it skyrockets the number of men who would be interested in safely paying fore sex, but there simply aren't all that many women willing to do it. \n\nBut as long as the demand is there, the system incentivizes sex traffickers to gather even more victims than before, and the fact that legal prostitution exists, makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight. \n\nIf any john can claim as a defense that he assumed the establishment's papers were in order, or if a random police patrol doesn't see women standing on the side of a country road as inherently worthy of investigating, and so on, that just means more opportunities to conduct operations with dubiously consenting women, as well as outright sex slavery. \n\n\n", "timestamp": 1521997189 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9li8x", "score": 7, "text": "Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs). Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia?\n\nYou don't stop sex trafficking by random patrols investigating women standing on the side of a country road. You do this via audits and checks, which is something you can do if legalised. Audits are far more reliable than random patrols.\n\nEdit: A porn video is viewed by millions because it's far more easily accessible. Just because more guys watch porn than pay for a prostitute doesn't mean that porn is somehow that much different. Again look at Australia", "timestamp": 1521998773 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dw9m0sr", "score": 1, "text": "> Demand isn't necessarily being increased with legalisation (again like drugs).\n\nThe thing about drugs, is that even if it would, the legal supply could just be increased with the legal demand. \n\nThe problem is if you try to clean up an industry, where your goal is explicitly to reduce the supply.\n\n For example, the same problem shows up with ivory. If you try to legalize the ivory trade but your ultimate goal is to restrict it's scope and save some elephants, then the poachers and smugglers won't actually cooperate with you, they will just exploit the cover of some of the ivory now being legal, to pass off theirs as part of that, to great effect. \n\n> Also if what you were saying is true, surely we would see evidence of this in countries in Australia?\n\nAbsolutely we do, I linked to the studies in my top level post to op. \n\n", "timestamp": 1521999324 } ]	[ "dw9jhms", "dw9ok3b", "dw9pjkg", "dw9qpu9", "dw9ry1j" ]	[ "dw9iog9", "dw9j8pz", "dw9k0ze", "dw9li8x", "dw9m0sr" ]
CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	What kind of argument or evidence could change your view? --- Evidence of the majority of married men being able to get casual sex if they want it. --- Wait... are you saying that the only reason a man marries a woman is for sex? In this day and age, I can assure you that's not the reason. This isn't the 1930s. Men don't need to marry a woman to have sex. Men can and do have casual sex all the time. You seem to be living in an alternate universe if you need evidence of that. --- But I think that only unattractive men get married since attractive men don't need to. I do require evidence not of general casual sex but of specifically married men being able to get it. --- Attractive men get married. --- Give a source saying that controlling for socioeconomic status attractive men get married equally or more than unattractive men. --- You didn't say unattractive men get married more than attractive men, you said "only unattractive men get married." --- That was an exaggeration and I do not give deltas on technicalities. --- Read the rules man, deltas should be awarded on technicalities	This post assumes 2 incredibly wrong things: sex is the foremost reason people get married, a woman only has her body to offer in a marriage. Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution. --- > Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. As I said in the title everything I am saying applies to long term relationships as well. >Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution. This one is a little difficult but I don't believe that women dislike sex in marriages, it is tolerable or perhaps even slightly enjoyable but there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man. It can very easily go the other way and men could somehow have the bargaining power to demand additional services. My view predicts that the ratio of concern for frequency of sex to concern over the other partner's income/productivity would be higher for men and lower for women, that is men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems. --- If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. >there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. > men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems. This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. --- > If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. > Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married. >I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. But there aren't very many attractive men and sometimes if a man is accompanied wiht money the difference makes being with him better than being with an actual attractive man. >This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. I want actual statistics on this before I give a delta. --- > Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married. Are you suggesting that women choose to get married to men that they wouldn't be willing to hookup with? Why would you make a life-long committment to someone you weren't even willing to spend a few hours with? --- Yes. I think that most women reduce their standards for when they get married because the commitment makes up for the man's unattractiveness. Only a relatively small portion of the male population is attractive enough for hookups so their hope of marrying a hookup worthy man is slim. --- Do you have any evidence for that view? Women I know have much higher standards for a spouse than a hookup. --- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2278597/The-men-want-sex-lower-standards-frisky-females-RAISE-theirs-new-study-finds.html --- The Daily Mail? Seriously? Are you going to cite the National Enquirer next?	6xqfon	CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution	I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	9	9	[ { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhq7f8", "score": 2, "text": "What kind of argument or evidence could change your view?", "timestamp": 1504403820 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhqs4z", "score": 2, "text": "Evidence of the majority of married men being able to get casual sex if they want it.", "timestamp": 1504404653 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhqvwz", "score": 6, "text": "Wait... are you saying that the only reason a man marries a woman is for sex?\n\nIn this day and age, I can assure you that's not the reason. This isn't the 1930s.\n\nMen don't need to marry a woman to have sex. Men can and do have casual sex all the time. You seem to be living in an alternate universe if you need evidence of that.", "timestamp": 1504404808 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsg07", "score": 1, "text": "But I think that only unattractive men get married since attractive men don't need to. I do require evidence not of general casual sex but of specifically married men being able to get it.", "timestamp": 1504407130 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhshot", "score": 6, "text": "Attractive men get married. ", "timestamp": 1504407203 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsvx0", "score": 1, "text": "Give a source saying that controlling for socioeconomic status attractive men get married equally or more than unattractive men.", "timestamp": 1504407778 }, { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhtde6", "score": 3, "text": "You didn't say unattractive men get married more than attractive men, you said \"only unattractive men get married.\"", "timestamp": 1504408516 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhtn25", "score": 1, "text": "That was an exaggeration and I do not give deltas on technicalities.", "timestamp": 1504408926 }, { "author": "rustinchole", "id": "dmhz3pt", "score": 5, "text": "Read the rules man, deltas should be awarded on technicalities", "timestamp": 1504419065 } ]	[ { "author": "Nicholasthesecond", "id": "dmhqqlk", "score": 11, "text": "This post assumes 2 incredibly wrong things: sex is the foremost reason people get married, a woman only has her body to offer in a marriage.\n\nGiven that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married. Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution.", "timestamp": 1504404588 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhsrod", "score": 2, "text": "> Given that many couples practice premarital sex, sex would not be an incentive to get married.\n\nAs I said in the title everything I am saying applies to long term relationships as well.\n\n>Secondly women have roles in a relationship outside of the bedroom. Depending on the relationship they act as coparent, cook, clean, help pay bills/are the bread winner themselves, and help their partners mentally/emotionally; thus making the relationship give and take, not prostitution.\n\nThis one is a little difficult but I don't believe that women dislike sex in marriages, it is tolerable or perhaps even slightly enjoyable but there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man. It can very easily go the other way and men could somehow have the bargaining power to demand additional services. My view predicts that the ratio of concern for frequency of sex to concern over the other partner's income/productivity would be higher for men and lower for women, that is men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems.", "timestamp": 1504407606 }, { "author": "Nicholasthesecond", "id": "dmhtz36", "score": 2, "text": "If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture. \n\n>there needs to be something more for them to be willign to have sex with the man\n\nI'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free. \n\n> men would be more concerned over frequency of sex and women would be more concerned with their partner's income/productivity, and thus men would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over sex problems and women would be proportionately more likely to initiate divorce over financial problems.\n\nThis assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it. ", "timestamp": 1504409441 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhuwst", "score": 2, "text": "> If sex were the main reason for any man to get into a relationship, he is undermining his goal. It's counterintuitive to subsidize a woman in exchange for sex when we have a very strong and open hook up culture.\n> \n\nMany men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married.\n\n>I'm interested to know why you would think that, seeing as most of my peers and other young adults find the only thing they need in order to have sex with someone is a libido and a physically attractive man. Both of which are free.\n\nBut there aren't very many attractive men and sometimes if a man is accompanied wiht money the difference makes being with him better than being with an actual attractive man.\n\n>This assumes that men value only sex in a relationship, (taken from my parents own marriage, my dad is far more concerned about paying the majority of the bills) and that women would rather have a nice house and clean linens. Being in the generation that will soon be apart of marriage statistics, these claims are false. Most people in long term relationships are looking for, both male and female, a great connection, great sex, and overall stability. There's no reason for us to subsidize another person for sex because, as I mentioned before, the hook up scene fulfills that need. Furthermore, if a woman is unhappy with the sex in her relationship, she will end it in favor of said hookup scene; likewise, if a male is unhappy with a partners productivity, he will end it.\n\nI want actual statistics on this before I give a delta.", "timestamp": 1504410963 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmi76h4", "score": 8, "text": "> Many men don't have good enough personalities to get hookups so they get married.\n\nAre you suggesting that women choose to get married to men that they wouldn't be willing to hookup with? Why would you make a life-long committment to someone you weren't even willing to spend a few hours with?", "timestamp": 1504441912 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmih58c", "score": 2, "text": "Yes. I think that most women reduce their standards for when they get married because the commitment makes up for the man's unattractiveness. Only a relatively small portion of the male population is attractive enough for hookups so their hope of marrying a hookup worthy man is slim.", "timestamp": 1504457580 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmii0ri", "score": 3, "text": "Do you have any evidence for that view? Women I know have much higher standards for a spouse than a hookup. ", "timestamp": 1504458705 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmiip6c", "score": 1, "text": "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2278597/The-men-want-sex-lower-standards-frisky-females-RAISE-theirs-new-study-finds.html", "timestamp": 1504459580 }, { "author": "tea_and_honey", "id": "dmijeb9", "score": 4, "text": "The Daily Mail? Seriously? Are you going to cite the National Enquirer next? \n\n", "timestamp": 1504460476 } ]	[ "dmhq7f8", "dmhqs4z", "dmhqvwz", "dmhsg07", "dmhshot", "dmhsvx0", "dmhtde6", "dmhtn25", "dmhz3pt" ]	[ "dmhqqlk", "dmhsrod", "dmhtz36", "dmhuwst", "dmi76h4", "dmih58c", "dmii0ri", "dmiip6c", "dmijeb9" ]
CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	There are marriages where women are the breadwinners though... and marriages not between a man and a woman. --- Those are the exception and not the norm. --- They are [38%](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/amp/) of all marriages (where women are the primary breadwinners), more than a third and quite a large chunk to dismiss as an exception.	> I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. What exactly are men giving their wives? --- Money (although not expressed as payment), housework, miscellaneous experiences not of a sexual nature. --- Wives don't give these things to their husbands?	6xqfon	CMV: Marriage and Long Term relationships are prostitution	I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him. I do believe that there can be exceptions such as marriages that began as friends with benefits arrangements and scenarios where men impregnate women and because of care for the child marry them to help raise the child. I am not going to dispute things such as sex being better in marriages or married people being happier, I only think that marriages are not built on genuine sexual attraction on a woman's part and thus are a form of prostitution. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	3	3	[ { "author": "cupcakesarethedevil", "id": "dmhps09", "score": 8, "text": "There are marriages where women are the breadwinners though... and marriages not between a man and a woman. ", "timestamp": 1504403192 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhq4lc", "score": -3, "text": "Those are the exception and not the norm.", "timestamp": 1504403707 }, { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dmhqx4s", "score": 9, "text": "They are [38%](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-many-women-earn-more-than-their-husbands/amp/) of all marriages (where women are the primary breadwinners), more than a third and quite a large chunk to dismiss as an exception.\n", "timestamp": 1504404859 } ]	[ { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhpqlu", "score": 2, "text": "> I think that marriage and long term relationships are prostitution because they involve a man giving additional things to a woman in an attempt to get her to have sex with him.\n\nWhat exactly are men giving their wives? ", "timestamp": 1504403136 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhq49c", "score": 1, "text": "Money (although not expressed as payment), housework, miscellaneous experiences not of a sexual nature.", "timestamp": 1504403693 }, { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhq6h6", "score": 5, "text": "Wives don't give these things to their husbands?", "timestamp": 1504403781 } ]	[ "dmhps09", "dmhq4lc", "dmhqx4s" ]	[ "dmhpqlu", "dmhq49c", "dmhq6h6" ]
CMV: White people are objectively easier to tell apart on average than Chinese people I said this to a Chinese friend and was called racist. But I'm not even saying it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying there is more variety of the way white people look. But whites have multiple hair colors, multiple eye colors, a bigger variety of skin tones. White guys have way more variety of facial hair, and white guys tend to go bald younger adding to the variety White people are more likely to become obese, again making it easier to tell them apart. China ranks number 157 for most obese country at only 6.9%. That's just a fact https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ Even their fashion in China, in schools they are more likely to wear uniforms in schools making them look even more alike	[removed] --- This is a dumb answer because those phenotypes aren't how you tell people apart. Can you tell that Reese Witherspoon and Uma Thurman are different people despite the fact that they are both blonde blue eyed white women?	It seems rather unfair to compare people from 1 country to people from various countries. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare white people to south east asian people? --- No. The population of China is 1.3 billion	86z70k	CMV: White people are objectively easier to tell apart on average than Chinese people	I said this to a Chinese friend and was called racist. But I'm not even saying it's a good or bad thing, i'm just saying there is more variety of the way white people look. But whites have multiple hair colors, multiple eye colors, a bigger variety of skin tones. White guys have way more variety of facial hair, and white guys tend to go bald younger adding to the variety White people are more likely to become obese, again making it easier to tell them apart. China ranks number 157 for most obese country at only 6.9%. That's just a fact https://renewbariatrics.com/obesity-rank-by-countries/ Even their fashion in China, in schools they are more likely to wear uniforms in schools making them look even more alike	McGonzaless	2	2	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dw9asx9", "score": -1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1521986183 }, { "author": "parentheticalobject", "id": "dw9d6cs", "score": 6, "text": "This is a dumb answer because those phenotypes aren't how you tell people apart. Can you tell that Reese Witherspoon and Uma Thurman are different people despite the fact that they are both blonde blue eyed white women?", "timestamp": 1521989384 } ]	[ { "author": "DeleteriousEuphuism", "id": "dw8z7ia", "score": 6, "text": "It seems rather unfair to compare people from 1 country to people from various countries. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare white people to south east asian people?", "timestamp": 1521960822 }, { "author": "McGonzaless", "id": "dw8znxo", "score": -2, "text": "No. The population of China is 1.3 billion", "timestamp": 1521961725 } ]	[ "dw9asx9", "dw9d6cs" ]	[ "dw8z7ia", "dw8znxo" ]
CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm sorry you feel that way, but I feel like your experiences being very limited isn't a good representation of the culture as a whole. I also think you're making the mistake of thinking that some of these experiences didn't also happen to women before now. Some men still treated women as sex objects and are just as shitty as they are now. I think the biggest difference is that there's less of a societal pressure to look at the women and make them feel like shit for sleeping with womanizers. And now women can be open about it and get support from other men and women to help them cope and understand their experiences. In the old days people would jus look at you and think "who gives a shit, that's what you get for being a whore". It's different these days. I think the main point you're missing is that a sexual liberation doesn't mean that you still aren't responsible for your choices or have to deal with the consequences, but that you don't have to be publicly shamed for them. --- You know what? Your last sentence was such a good point. I think I widened the definition of what women's sexual liberation meant. I do think that girl's should be warned in advance that they shouldn't feel ashamed to have sex, but understand how men view casual sex and the consequences of that. --- First, I think it might help you to understand that there is no such thing as "the way men view casual sex". Different men have different viewpoints and those viewpoints are diverse and varied enough to preclude any generalization. Second, realize that liberation doesn't guarantee a better experience. It empowers you to make choices. You can still choose to not partake in hookup culture. You can choose to wait until marriage to have sex. You can also choose to have sex with a new person or two every day. Prior to sexual liberation, those were not really choices. You followed one path and if you didn't, you effectively eliminated 90% of the dating pool. Instead you now have choices. Each choice carries consequences. No matter which path you take, you eliminate people from your dating pool and that is ok because you probably wouldn't be ideologically compatible with them anyway. Women were liberated from lack of choice and empowered with choice. Neither of these things guarantee good interactions. Bad outcomes are possible with any choice. You may have a casual hook up with an inconsiderate guy or you could save yourself for marriage only to find out you are married to a poor and selfish lover that refuses to change. At the end of the day... You are not protected. You are not free from risk. However, you are free to make the best choice for you though and that is important.	[deleted] --- [deleted] --- [deleted]	6xq7f1	CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women	I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	dukenotredame	3	3	[ { "author": "LordNelson27", "id": "dmhq7oe", "score": 103, "text": "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I feel like your experiences being very limited isn't a good representation of the culture as a whole. I also think you're making the mistake of thinking that some of these experiences didn't also happen to women before now. Some men still treated women as sex objects and are just as shitty as they are now. I think the biggest difference is that there's less of a societal pressure to look at the women and make them feel like shit for sleeping with womanizers. And now women can be open about it and get support from other men and women to help them cope and understand their experiences. In the old days people would jus look at you and think \"who gives a shit, that's what you get for being a whore\". It's different these days. I think the main point you're missing is that a sexual liberation doesn't mean that you still aren't responsible for your choices or have to deal with the consequences, but that you don't have to be publicly shamed for them.", "timestamp": 1504403830 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhrc16", "score": 11, "text": "You know what? Your last sentence was such a good point. \n\nI think I widened the definition of what women's sexual liberation meant. I do think that girl's should be warned in advance that they shouldn't feel ashamed to have sex, but understand how men view casual sex and the consequences of that. ", "timestamp": 1504405480 }, { "author": "sarcasticorange", "id": "dmhzqn9", "score": 39, "text": "First, I think it might help you to understand that there is no such thing as \"the way men view casual sex\". Different men have different viewpoints and those viewpoints are diverse and varied enough to preclude any generalization.\n\nSecond, realize that liberation doesn't guarantee a better experience. It empowers you to make choices. You can still choose to not partake in hookup culture. You can choose to wait until marriage to have sex. You can also choose to have sex with a new person or two every day. Prior to sexual liberation, those were not really choices. You followed one path and if you didn't, you effectively eliminated 90% of the dating pool.\n\nInstead you now have choices. Each choice carries consequences. No matter which path you take, you eliminate people from your dating pool and that is ok because you probably wouldn't be ideologically compatible with them anyway.\n\nWomen were liberated from lack of choice and empowered with choice. Neither of these things guarantee good interactions. Bad outcomes are possible with any choice. You may have a casual hook up with an inconsiderate guy or you could save yourself for marriage only to find out you are married to a poor and selfish lover that refuses to change. \n\nAt the end of the day... You are not protected. You are not free from risk. However, you are free to make the best choice for you though and that is important.", "timestamp": 1504420619 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmho46k", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504400757 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhoddz", "score": 0, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504401130 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhok9l", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504401407 } ]	[ "dmhq7oe", "dmhrc16", "dmhzqn9" ]	[ "dmho46k", "dmhoddz", "dmhok9l" ]
CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I'm not really sure what casual sex has to do with these men being assholes. It seems like these very same men would tell women they had feelings and wanted something serious and would still be assholes to them. I dont really see how the problem is casual sex. The problem is some people being assholes. Secondly, (and this is a smaller point) you can't really go in to casual sex expecting cuddling. That's like going to a concert and expecting the band to talk to you afterwards. Casual sex means just sex. There shouldn't be an expectation of anything more and that's not really anyone's fault if you don't already know that going in --- Cuddling was my friend Lauren. I have no idea why she wanted to cuddle with him afterwards. I just wanted to sleep the night over. Oh hell, I just wanted to finish putting my clothes on before I was asked to leave. --- I think this isn't a gender issue but more of an issue with hookup culture and how people aren't able to accurately understand themselves and what they want from an encounter. I'm a woman and I enjoy my fair share of casual sex and I can safely say that a lot of your issues are a matter of mismatched expectations. > I just wanted to sleep the night over Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. When it comes to casual sex, it's just that, casual sex. We fuck then it's time to leave. Unless I'm missing something, this is more an issue of mismatched expectations than them being jerks. They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. > One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. I have a FWB that I really don't like talking to out of sex. He's really boring, quiet and isn't that fun to be around. But we still sleep together because we like having sex with each other and we both like our current relationship (come over, fuck, then leave). If he asked me to hang out without the sex I would turn him down because I don't like hanging out with him. You don't have to like someone to get off from fucking them. I feel like a lot of your issues stem from simply being a relationship person. You don't actually seem to want any part of causal sex other than the actually sex part. While I do care about my partners in a altruistic way (I want them to enjoy themselves and don't want to hurt them) I don't really care about getting to know them as people or try to create a deeper relationship where there isn't one. --- >Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? >They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. If you're fucking me and sharing fluids with me, you should have the decency to say hi when we run into each other in public. I'm a human being, not a human hole. The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. I think that's what I was shocked about. --- > You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Again, I'm a woman. This isn't a gendered issue, this is an issue of you not liking casual sex but still wanting casual sex for whatever reason. > The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. That's what casual sex is. If you wanted a relationship (even a friendship) then you shouldn't be having casual sex. > I think that's what I was shocked about. You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. You had some misconceptions which have been addressed in some unpleasant experiences. This is part of growing up and learning about yourself and relationships. Everyone makes mistakes and gets a little hurt in the process and that's part of growing up and learning. You being hurt is no ones fault but your own for subjecting yourself to relationships you knew you didn't like. Don't like casual sex? Don't do it. --- > To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Dude, that's not logical at all. You're basically saying: "I trust you enough to engage in an activity where you could possibly get me sick and I could possibly end up bearing your child, but it's instinctual not to trust you to lie unconscious next to me." >You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. I think what I was trying to say was that sexual liberation lied to women. Certain advocates stretched the definition of women's liberation and began encouraging women to engage in casual sexual activity, yet failed to warn women of these consequences. Again, I think this stemmed from my own misconception of the definition of women's sexual liberation and how other women have stretched it. My second point of view was that casual sex has harmed women. I still think women were lied and conned into thinking casual sex is good for them. What is sold as what casual sex is suppose to be like is not what it turns out to be with. These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. I think it works for some women like you, but I think most women are not equipped for it. My last criticism of casual sex is that casual sex as a whole is harmful practice. As previously stated, when most men engage in casual sex, they just see the women as temporarily letting them use their bodies so they can orgasm. And nothing else! There's no acquaintancy to the relationship, there's not guarantee of respect or decency for the woman. I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. If second wave feminists knew casual sex was this type of activity, why would they encourage women to engage into an activity that is just negative? Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? How could encouraging women to emulate dehumanizing behavior be good of them? That is deceptive. I think women (feminists) and men who encourage casual sex to the younger generation are deceiving women into doing an activity they know we as women aren't equipped for and it's wrong. --- >These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. >I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. Thats simply you being a women, not understanding how other people work mentally. So, let me explain this statement: Sexuality for women works differently than for men. Women tend to need "the whole package" while men are much more focused on visual and physical stimuli. "The whole package" is what you are asking for. Respect, feeling comfortable and valued, wanting a high-quality mate, arousal and so on. Men ...see you as walking boobs, ass and a series of holes. (Well, not literally, but thats closer to how male sexuality works) In that sense, you expect people to be like you...but they are not. Now you say thats deception. But its not. You think people treating you politely means they actually respect you. In reality, most people will most likely not care about you in any positive or negative way. You are there? Cool thing. You are not there? Cool thing, too. You think people need to care about you to have sex with you. Well, they don't. Those men want to have their sexual needs satisfied. In that sense, it's mutual masturbation using each others body. They don't seem to to think to have any obligation beyond that. Is that deception? Not necessarily. If "having a hook-up" is exactly that, meeting for sex with nothing else happening, sending you out more or less politely is fine. Its not deception. Thats why they are happy it happened and you are unhappy it happened. They got what they wanted, while you didn't. This problem is your personal conception of what "casual sex" should entail, while reality is different. For you, being used for mutual masturbation is disturbing and not fulfilling. For others, its exactly what they want. The only deception I can see here is people telling you this is gonna be awesome, while not telling you how reality works. I mean: >Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? Exactly that. What is wrong with animalistic sex? Nothing. Dehumanizing? Maybe. People fuck fruits, too. Sex is a wide field with lots of "weird" things taking place. The main problem is more along the line of "Do you want that happening?" and "Did you know what you are getting yourself into?". You were tricked into believing the world is cool and nice and sexy. Its animalistic, ignorant and doesn't give a fuck about you. People will use and discard you, if you put yourself in a position where they can do it. Thats not a male thing, thats a human thing. Possible even a feature of being alive. I'd even add another lie society tells you to the list: That women can have sex like men do. They don't. Its hard for men to have sex with lots of women while any reasonably looking women can as much sex as she wants to. Most men will not like women having a high partner count, no matter what society tells everybody. They just can't outright state so anymore. On the other hand, women tend to not care about it as much, for whatever reason. In that sense, having sex is something you should take seriously. What do you truly want and why? Sounds like you want a committed relationship with someone who actually is invested in you. Please take some time and ask yourself how you want to be treated and then put yourself in a relationship with a person, who gives you exactly that. Thats much more useful than listening to "what society tells you".	> We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. > I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. No matter how liberated we feel, when men have casual sex, they reduce us to a sex object. And sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Why would they need to respect someone that has no value to them? The problem is that you're doing hook-up culture wrong. What you've described above is exactly how you're supposed to feel about your partner. If you're not feeling that way about your partner - that he's just a hard dick to make you feel good - then you're doing it wrong. You should be eager to leave once sex is done. You and your girlfriends should be referring to your hook-up guys as "the pole" and complaining about how their dicks are too small or how they cum too quickly. --- Yikes, no. Mocking people about their sexual performance behind their back is childish and immature. If OP wants to have no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you hook up with someone, it's basic human decency to make sure everyone has the same understanding and expectations going in. And if that's not what OP wants, that's also okay. There's no "right" way to have sex with people. --- > no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you're having a hook-up, you should be on board with that because that's what hook ups are. If you're not on board with that, don't have hook ups. --- That's what I am saying, women aren't really told what "no-strings-attached sex" is, atleast not the first time, they have to find out from the experience itself. For men it really means no strings attached, you are just letting me borrow your body temporarily. It's a shocker for some girls who expect some human decency to it. I don't find that to be empowering. How does using someone's body empower me? And how does it empower me to know that someone views me as strictly as a human hole? And that's the only value I have? --- and who's responsibility is it to tell women? --- The people marketing "hook up culture" and casual sex to women. They don't tell give us the entire picture. --- who is they? why is it their responsibility? surely it is your responsibility to become fully informed before doing something?	6xq7f1	CMV: Sexual liberation and casual sex has harmed women	I grew up very Catholic so it was no surprise that when I initially went to college, I was very chaste. My sophomore year of college I was exposed to "hook up culture" and in the classroom, learned about women's sexual liberation in the 60's. I was sold on the whole idea of women's sexual liberation and casual sex: if men can have sex without strings, why can't women? So this was my logic, when I had my first casual "hook up" with a guy junior year. Right after we finished, he opened the door and asked me to leave. Like I was a prostitute. I knew it was casual and I didn't expect he and I to date nor did I have any romantic expectations of him, but I expected to be treated with respect and as human being. My best friend from college, "Lauren" slept with several men on campus. She was proud of her sexuality, she enjoyed herself, and had no qualms about anyone who judged her; this was what liberation had taught us right?. One day I was sitting behind two guys in the library, two with whom she happened to have slept with with on different occasions. They were talking about her and didn't notice I was there. "The sex was horrible!" "Was her vagina that dry when you hit it too?" one said about Lauren. Then he complained about how he was forced to cuddle with her afterwards. Then went on how she was "passing the pussy." I had to tell her; she was devastated. She felt as terrible as I did when I got kicked out after sex. It wasn't just Lauren, another friend "Susan" slept with various basketball players. A male friend told me that the guys referred to her as "the Basketball hoop." I ended up trying the casual sex thing various times again, all with similar negative experiences and men who only saw me for the value of my vagina. One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual. Lauren, Susan, and I all felt like shit when these men's masks came off. But where was this power I was suppose to feel from being sexual liberated? We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on. I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. Casual sex has made men even more sexist. Men may no longer publicly shame women, but in "men's world" the myth of the "virgin-whore" dichotomy still exists on who is "girlfriend material" and who is "pass the pussy" material. Also, there are tons of consequences that are not communicated initially. For example, sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Most importantly, people never tell women how men really view casual sex. Men see it as you temporarily letting him use your body. They don't have to respect you as a human being, because we are just sex toys to them. How does treating another human being as an object empower women? How is engaging in dehumanizing behavior empowering? Telling women to emulate the way men have casual sex is telling women to engage in behavior that is cynical and animalistic. How can this be helpful to women? I think we are conned into believing sexual liberation and casual sex was good for us. I feel like it's been more harmful to women than helpful than anything. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	dukenotredame	7	7	[ { "author": "NoneApplicable", "id": "dmhtd2n", "score": 11, "text": "I'm not really sure what casual sex has to do with these men being assholes. It seems like these very same men would tell women they had feelings and wanted something serious and would still be assholes to them. I dont really see how the problem is casual sex. The problem is some people being assholes.\n\nSecondly, (and this is a smaller point) you can't really go in to casual sex expecting cuddling. That's like going to a concert and expecting the band to talk to you afterwards. Casual sex means just sex. There shouldn't be an expectation of anything more and that's not really anyone's fault if you don't already know that going in", "timestamp": 1504408503 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhtibb", "score": 3, "text": "Cuddling was my friend Lauren. I have no idea why she wanted to cuddle with him afterwards. \n\nI just wanted to sleep the night over. Oh hell, I just wanted to finish putting my clothes on before I was asked to leave. ", "timestamp": 1504408730 }, { "author": "Throwawayace67894", "id": "dmi53ih", "score": 15, "text": "I think this isn't a gender issue but more of an issue with hookup culture and how people aren't able to accurately understand themselves and what they want from an encounter. I'm a woman and I enjoy my fair share of casual sex and I can safely say that a lot of your issues are a matter of mismatched expectations.\n\n> I just wanted to sleep the night over\n\nYeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much. When it comes to casual sex, it's just that, casual sex. We fuck then it's time to leave. Unless I'm missing something, this is more an issue of mismatched expectations than them being jerks. They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another. \n\n> One later claimed he didn't even know me, although he had slept with me several times before. I asked another if we could hangout as friends, without the sex. He immediately told me no, he wanted to keep our relationship purely sexual.\n\nI have a FWB that I really don't like talking to out of sex. He's really boring, quiet and isn't that fun to be around. But we still sleep together because we like having sex with each other and we both like our current relationship (come over, fuck, then leave). If he asked me to hang out without the sex I would turn him down because I don't like hanging out with him. You don't have to like someone to get off from fucking them.\n\nI feel like a lot of your issues stem from simply being a relationship person. You don't actually seem to want any part of causal sex other than the actually sex part. While I do care about my partners in a altruistic way (I want them to enjoy themselves and don't want to hurt them) I don't really care about getting to know them as people or try to create a deeper relationship where there isn't one.", "timestamp": 1504436506 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmi8osu", "score": 3, "text": ">Yeah no. I fucking hate it when anyone sleeps the night in my bed especially if I don't know them too well of don't even like them that much.\n\nYou knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over? \n\n>They wanted a particular relationship and you wanted another.\n\nIf you're fucking me and sharing fluids with me, you should have the decency to say hi when we run into each other in public. \n\nI'm a human being, not a human hole. \n\nThe men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them. \n\nI think that's what I was shocked about. ", "timestamp": 1504444990 }, { "author": "Throwawayace67894", "id": "dmi9dnc", "score": 9, "text": "> You knew me well enough to put your penis in my vagina, but you don't know me well enough to let me sleep the night over?\n\nTo me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. Again, I'm a woman. This isn't a gendered issue, this is an issue of you not liking casual sex but still wanting casual sex for whatever reason.\n\n> The men expected a very transactional type of relationship. Casual sex was/is very like a transaction to them.\n\nThat's what casual sex is. If you wanted a relationship (even a friendship) then you shouldn't be having casual sex. \n\n> I think that's what I was shocked about.\n\nYou being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'. You had some misconceptions which have been addressed in some unpleasant experiences. This is part of growing up and learning about yourself and relationships. Everyone makes mistakes and gets a little hurt in the process and that's part of growing up and learning. You being hurt is no ones fault but your own for subjecting yourself to relationships you knew you didn't like. Don't like casual sex? Don't do it. ", "timestamp": 1504446249 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmin6eu", "score": 0, "text": "> To me there's a big difference between engaging in some physical fun with someone new who I don't know too well and being unconscious next to that person. It's not a logical thing, just an instinct to me. Just because I smash genitals together with someone doesn't mean I want to spend time with them or even like them as a person. \n\nDude, that's not logical at all. You're basically saying: \"I trust you enough to engage in an activity where you could possibly get me sick and I could possibly end up bearing your child, but it's instinctual not to trust you to lie unconscious next to me.\" \n\n>You being shocked doesn't translate to 'sexual liberation harms women'.\n\nI think what I was trying to say was that sexual liberation lied to women. Certain advocates stretched the definition of women's liberation and began encouraging women to engage in casual sexual activity, yet failed to warn women of these consequences. \n\nAgain, I think this stemmed from my own misconception of the definition of women's sexual liberation and how other women have stretched it.\n\nMy second point of view was that casual sex has harmed women. \nI still think women were lied and conned into thinking casual sex is good for them. What is sold as what casual sex is suppose to be like is not what it turns out to be with. \n\nThese men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being. \n\nI think it works for some women like you, but I think most women are not equipped for it. \n\nMy last criticism of casual sex is that casual sex as a whole is harmful practice. As previously stated, when most men engage in casual sex, they just see the women as temporarily letting them use their bodies so they can orgasm. And nothing else! There's no acquaintancy to the relationship, there's not guarantee of respect or decency for the woman. \n\nI believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic. \n\nIf second wave feminists knew casual sex was this type of activity, why would they encourage women to engage into an activity that is just negative? Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing? \n\nHow could encouraging women to emulate dehumanizing behavior be good of them?\n\nThat is deceptive. I think women (feminists) and men who encourage casual sex to the younger generation are deceiving women into doing an activity they know we as women aren't equipped for and it's wrong. \n", "timestamp": 1504465405 }, { "author": "Inelukie", "id": "dmjtb6e", "score": 1, "text": ">These men are nice to us when we meet them initially and treat us with the respect of an acquaintance, but as soon as the sex comes, they reveal that they don't care about us as human beings at all, but as view us as human holes to get off on. That is deception is what is hurtful. And the fact you can engage in an activity where you are physically closest to a person as you can be, but that man doesn't even value you as a human being.\n\n>I believe that viewing anyone as a sex object is dehumanizing and animalistic.\n\nThats simply you being a women, not understanding how other people work mentally. So, let me explain this statement:\n\nSexuality for women works differently than for men. Women tend to need \"the whole package\" while men are much more focused on visual and physical stimuli. \"The whole package\" is what you are asking for. Respect, feeling comfortable and valued, wanting a high-quality mate, arousal and so on. Men ...see you as walking boobs, ass and a series of holes. (Well, not literally, but thats closer to how male sexuality works)\n\nIn that sense, you expect people to be like you...but they are not. Now you say thats deception. But its not. You think people treating you politely means they actually respect you. In reality, most people will most likely not care about you in any positive or negative way. You are there? Cool thing. You are not there? Cool thing, too.\n\nYou think people need to care about you to have sex with you. Well, they don't. Those men want to have their sexual needs satisfied. In that sense, it's mutual masturbation using each others body. They don't seem to to think to have any obligation beyond that. Is that deception? Not necessarily. If \"having a hook-up\" is exactly that, meeting for sex with nothing else happening, sending you out more or less politely is fine. Its not deception. Thats why they are happy it happened and you are unhappy it happened. They got what they wanted, while you didn't.\n\nThis problem is your personal conception of what \"casual sex\" should entail, while reality is different. For you, being used for mutual masturbation is disturbing and not fulfilling. For others, its exactly what they want. \n\nThe only deception I can see here is people telling you this is gonna be awesome, while not telling you how reality works. I mean:\n\n>Why would they tell women to emulate a behavior that is animalistic and dehumanizing?\n\nExactly that. What is wrong with animalistic sex? Nothing. Dehumanizing? Maybe. People fuck fruits, too. Sex is a wide field with lots of \"weird\" things taking place. The main problem is more along the line of \"Do you want that happening?\" and \"Did you know what you are getting yourself into?\".\n\nYou were tricked into believing the world is cool and nice and sexy. Its animalistic, ignorant and doesn't give a fuck about you. People will use and discard you, if you put yourself in a position where they can do it. Thats not a male thing, thats a human thing. Possible even a feature of being alive.\n\nI'd even add another lie society tells you to the list: That women can have sex like men do. They don't. Its hard for men to have sex with lots of women while any reasonably looking women can as much sex as she wants to. Most men will not like women having a high partner count, no matter what society tells everybody. They just can't outright state so anymore. On the other hand, women tend to not care about it as much, for whatever reason.\n\nIn that sense, having sex is something you should take seriously. What do you truly want and why? Sounds like you want a committed relationship with someone who actually is invested in you. Please take some time and ask yourself how you want to be treated and then put yourself in a relationship with a person, who gives you exactly that. Thats much more useful than listening to \"what society tells you\". ", "timestamp": 1504536903 } ]	[ { "author": "letsgetfunkymonkey", "id": "dmhptgn", "score": 2, "text": "> We were sleeping with these men but they didn't even see us as human beings. Sex was just like eating a sandwich to them, they didn't care where it came from. We were just sex objects for men to get off on.\n\n> I just can't see how sexual liberation has helped women. No matter how liberated we feel, when men have casual sex, they reduce us to a sex object. And sexual liberation does not mean men will respect you afterwards. Why would they need to respect someone that has no value to them?\n\nThe problem is that you're doing hook-up culture wrong. What you've described above is exactly how you're supposed to feel about your partner. If you're not feeling that way about your partner - that he's just a hard dick to make you feel good - then you're doing it wrong.\n\nYou should be eager to leave once sex is done. You and your girlfriends should be referring to your hook-up guys as \"the pole\" and complaining about how their dicks are too small or how they cum too quickly.", "timestamp": 1504403249 }, { "author": "little_snailor", "id": "dmhq0je", "score": 17, "text": "Yikes, no. Mocking people about their sexual performance behind their back is childish and immature.\n\nIf OP wants to have no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board. If you hook up with someone, it's basic human decency to make sure everyone has the same understanding and expectations going in. And if that's not what OP wants, that's also okay. There's no \"right\" way to have sex with people.", "timestamp": 1504403542 }, { "author": "letsgetfunkymonkey", "id": "dmhq957", "score": 4, "text": "> no-strings-attached, totally-cool-with-no-emotional-involvement sex, that's fine. But everybody has to be on board.\n\nIf you're having a hook-up, you should be on board with that because that's what hook ups are. If you're not on board with that, don't have hook ups.", "timestamp": 1504403891 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmhs594", "score": 1, "text": "That's what I am saying, women aren't really told what \"no-strings-attached sex\" is, atleast not the first time, they have to find out from the experience itself. \n\nFor men it really means no strings attached, you are just letting me borrow your body temporarily.\n\nIt's a shocker for some girls who expect some human decency to it. \nI don't find that to be empowering. How does using someone's body empower me? And how does it empower me to know that someone views me as strictly as a human hole? And that's the only value I have?\n\n\n\n", "timestamp": 1504406687 }, { "author": "JNelson_", "id": "dmi4c32", "score": 6, "text": "and who's responsibility is it to tell women?", "timestamp": 1504434153 }, { "author": "dukenotredame", "id": "dmi92d6", "score": -1, "text": "The people marketing \"hook up culture\" and casual sex to women. \nThey don't tell give us the entire picture. ", "timestamp": 1504445687 }, { "author": "JNelson_", "id": "dmi9acj", "score": 6, "text": "who is they? why is it their responsibility? surely it is your responsibility to become fully informed before doing something?", "timestamp": 1504446086 } ]	[ "dmhtd2n", "dmhtibb", "dmi53ih", "dmi8osu", "dmi9dnc", "dmin6eu", "dmjtb6e" ]	[ "dmhptgn", "dmhq0je", "dmhq957", "dmhs594", "dmi4c32", "dmi92d6", "dmi9acj" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing. Humans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die. Some suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people. --- Yes, with our given physics, suffering is inevitable. But if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. Isn't that something the ultimate game player could do? Where conscious experience could still be a natural consequence of his laws, but no suffering ensues. From my understanding of physics and math, there's nothing preventing infinities, it's just not something we typically encounter or are aware of. --- Two points: Yes, if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. By the same token, if god is omnipotent he doesn't really need us at all. You're applying human reasoning to an omnipotent's reasoning. Maybe human suffering is no more than stubbing your toe in the grand scheme of things. Maybe death isn't as a big a deal as we think. If god is real then everything we think we understand is probably wrong. Second, when we were kids we didn't always understand the logic behind the things our parents did. That didn't mean they were uncaring -- quite the opposite. They were doing what was best for us even if we didn't understand how. Assuming god doesn't exist because things aren't perfect assumes we understand how god thinks. If there is a creator of the universe, I think it's fair to assume our brain is like an insect's in comparison!	I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. I’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. What I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. People with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. --- I actually like this response. There is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut. Your insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you? Δ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding. --- Evolution isn’t about purpose, it’s more about the effect of accidents on successful reproduction. It’s reasonable to suggest that the collection of accidents that led to the existence of sadness created a situation that helped signal to the larger community that support was needed, thereby helping sad people recover and eventually increase their odds of reproducing. But that doesn’t imply that it’s a designed system that should work consistently.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "pillbinge", "id": "e3lowxy", "score": 39, "text": "Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing.\n \nHumans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die.\n\nSome suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people.", "timestamp": 1533402971 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lq9bg", "score": 37, "text": "Yes, with our given physics, suffering is inevitable. But if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. Isn't that something the ultimate game player could do? Where conscious experience could still be a natural consequence of his laws, but no suffering ensues. From my understanding of physics and math, there's nothing preventing infinities, it's just not something we typically encounter or are aware of.", "timestamp": 1533404280 }, { "author": "JamesXX", "id": "e3luv54", "score": 45, "text": "Two points: \n\nYes, if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. By the same token, if god is omnipotent he doesn't really need us at all. You're applying human reasoning to an omnipotent's reasoning. Maybe human suffering is no more than stubbing your toe in the grand scheme of things. Maybe death isn't as a big a deal as we think. If god is real then everything we think we understand is probably wrong. \n\nSecond, when we were kids we didn't always understand the logic behind the things our parents did. That didn't mean they were uncaring -- quite the opposite. They were doing what was best for us even if we didn't understand how. \n\nAssuming god doesn't exist because things aren't perfect assumes we understand how god thinks. If there is a creator of the universe, I think it's fair to assume our brain is like an insect's in comparison!", "timestamp": 1533408922 } ]	[ { "author": "loveandsubmit", "id": "e3lnjrv", "score": 236, "text": "I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. \n\nI’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. \n\nWhat I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. \n\nPeople with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. \n\n", "timestamp": 1533401587 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lnyrk", "score": 142, "text": "I actually like this response.\n\nThere is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut.\n\nYour insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you?\n\nΔ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding.", "timestamp": 1533402019 }, { "author": "loveandsubmit", "id": "e3lp1a9", "score": 59, "text": "Evolution isn’t about purpose, it’s more about the effect of accidents on successful reproduction. It’s reasonable to suggest that the collection of accidents that led to the existence of sadness created a situation that helped signal to the larger community that support was needed, thereby helping sad people recover and eventually increase their odds of reproducing. But that doesn’t imply that it’s a designed system that should work consistently. ", "timestamp": 1533403090 } ]	[ "e3lowxy", "e3lq9bg", "e3luv54" ]	[ "e3lnjrv", "e3lnyrk", "e3lp1a9" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	I don’t disagree with you. However I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist. There are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc So I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be. --- Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me. --- If you really want to challenge your views look up Jordan Peterson biblical lectures. It’s multiple lectures but you should start obviously with the first one.	[removed] --- Sorry, I am genuinely not sure. Is this a genuine attempt to help, or are you being snarky? Assuming the best for now. --- He is being a little shit don't listen to him	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "GoThirdParty", "id": "e3lqrt4", "score": 123, "text": "I don’t disagree with you.\n\nHowever I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist.\n\nThere are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc\n\nSo I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be.", "timestamp": 1533404784 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lr7nv", "score": 87, "text": "Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me.", "timestamp": 1533405224 }, { "author": "KZGTURTLE", "id": "e3lvw0j", "score": 8, "text": "If you really want to challenge your views look up Jordan Peterson biblical lectures. It’s multiple lectures but you should start obviously with the first one. ", "timestamp": 1533409967 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e3lmx8q", "score": -4, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1533400951 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lnjbo", "score": 21, "text": "Sorry, I am genuinely not sure. Is this a genuine attempt to help, or are you being snarky? Assuming the best for now.", "timestamp": 1533401575 }, { "author": "cookiecreeper22", "id": "e3lq18m", "score": 8, "text": "He is being a little shit don't listen to him", "timestamp": 1533404060 } ]	[ "e3lqrt4", "e3lr7nv", "e3lvw0j" ]	[ "e3lmx8q", "e3lnjbo", "e3lq18m" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." -Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher Life sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going. --- Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it. --- Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. --- > Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. Yes, it is stopping it. In this case your meanings are themselves meaningless. Just subjective feelings flailing in futility against the objective fact that there is no meaning, and therefore all created meanings are artificial, worthless excuses to avoid suicide. You can have your meaning, just like some can have their God, but it's delusional.	I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. I’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. What I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. People with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. --- I actually like this response. There is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut. Your insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you? Δ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding. --- Evolution isn’t about purpose, it’s more about the effect of accidents on successful reproduction. It’s reasonable to suggest that the collection of accidents that led to the existence of sadness created a situation that helped signal to the larger community that support was needed, thereby helping sad people recover and eventually increase their odds of reproducing. But that doesn’t imply that it’s a designed system that should work consistently. --- Agreed, didn't actually mean to imply otherwise. Thanks for phrasing it more eloquently- and for pointing out that particular system isn't consistent.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	4	4	[ { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lqlwu", "score": 126, "text": "\"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.\"\n\n-Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher\n\nLife sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going.", "timestamp": 1533404624 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lqpmw", "score": 66, "text": "Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it.", "timestamp": 1533404724 }, { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lrgvj", "score": 27, "text": "Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine.", "timestamp": 1533405481 }, { "author": "Rasasta", "id": "e3lxt3q", "score": 3, "text": "> Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. \n\nYes, it is stopping it. In this case your meanings are themselves meaningless. Just subjective feelings flailing in futility against the objective fact that there is no meaning, and therefore all created meanings are artificial, worthless excuses to avoid suicide. You can have your meaning, just like some can have their God, but it's delusional.", "timestamp": 1533411971 } ]	[ { "author": "loveandsubmit", "id": "e3lnjrv", "score": 236, "text": "I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. \n\nI’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. \n\nWhat I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. \n\nPeople with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. \n\n", "timestamp": 1533401587 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lnyrk", "score": 142, "text": "I actually like this response.\n\nThere is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut.\n\nYour insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you?\n\nΔ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding.", "timestamp": 1533402019 }, { "author": "loveandsubmit", "id": "e3lp1a9", "score": 59, "text": "Evolution isn’t about purpose, it’s more about the effect of accidents on successful reproduction. It’s reasonable to suggest that the collection of accidents that led to the existence of sadness created a situation that helped signal to the larger community that support was needed, thereby helping sad people recover and eventually increase their odds of reproducing. But that doesn’t imply that it’s a designed system that should work consistently. ", "timestamp": 1533403090 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lpakp", "score": 48, "text": "Agreed, didn't actually mean to imply otherwise. Thanks for phrasing it more eloquently- and for pointing out that particular system isn't consistent.", "timestamp": 1533403336 } ]	[ "e3lqlwu", "e3lqpmw", "e3lrgvj", "e3lxt3q" ]	[ "e3lnjrv", "e3lnyrk", "e3lp1a9", "e3lpakp" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	I don’t disagree with you. However I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist. There are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc So I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be. --- Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me. --- While I'm not religious, I'm sympathetic to religion, thought not organized religion, or the average religious person. There's a few perspectives that might be worth keeping in mind. There's Deism, which used to be much more popular, especially among your founding fathers. Basically, they believed that God created the universe, that he set everything in motion, but that he does not interfere. Something that goes along quite nicely with this, is an explanation I heard to the problem of evil and suffering. What would we be without constraints? We would be infinite beings, Gods. We would not have to make choices. We would not even have the ability to be good, to prove or disprove ourselves. There wouldn't be choices. To give meaning to life then, it would make sense for a God to put constraints on it, and to leave us playing the game. That's the only way that it would have any purpose. I might be wrong, but your description of the universe as being something a scientist would describe, is a tautology. It's only what a scientist would describe, because their method yields descriptive results. The venn diagram of the scientific method and theology do not overlap, and should not be thought of as if they did. I also think the big bang begs the question of what set it off.	"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." -Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher Life sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going. --- Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it. --- Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "GoThirdParty", "id": "e3lqrt4", "score": 123, "text": "I don’t disagree with you.\n\nHowever I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist.\n\nThere are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc\n\nSo I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be.", "timestamp": 1533404784 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lr7nv", "score": 87, "text": "Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me.", "timestamp": 1533405224 }, { "author": "I_am_Norwegian", "id": "e3lurq9", "score": 32, "text": "While I'm not religious, I'm sympathetic to religion, thought not organized religion, or the average religious person. There's a few perspectives that might be worth keeping in mind. There's Deism, which used to be much more popular, especially among your founding fathers. Basically, they believed that God created the universe, that he set everything in motion, but that he does not interfere. \n\nSomething that goes along quite nicely with this, is an explanation I heard to the problem of evil and suffering. What would we be without constraints? We would be infinite beings, Gods. We would not have to make choices. We would not even have the ability to be good, to prove or disprove ourselves. There wouldn't be choices. To give meaning to life then, it would make sense for a God to put constraints on it, and to leave us playing the game. That's the only way that it would have any purpose. \n\nI might be wrong, but your description of the universe as being something a scientist would describe, is a tautology. It's only what a scientist would describe, because their method yields descriptive results. The venn diagram of the scientific method and theology do not overlap, and should not be thought of as if they did. I also think the big bang begs the question of what set it off. ", "timestamp": 1533408829 } ]	[ { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lqlwu", "score": 126, "text": "\"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.\"\n\n-Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher\n\nLife sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going.", "timestamp": 1533404624 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lqpmw", "score": 66, "text": "Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it.", "timestamp": 1533404724 }, { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lrgvj", "score": 27, "text": "Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine.", "timestamp": 1533405481 } ]	[ "e3lqrt4", "e3lr7nv", "e3lurq9" ]	[ "e3lqlwu", "e3lqpmw", "e3lrgvj" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	I don’t disagree with you. However I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist. There are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc So I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be. --- Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me. --- While I'm not religious, I'm sympathetic to religion, thought not organized religion, or the average religious person. There's a few perspectives that might be worth keeping in mind. There's Deism, which used to be much more popular, especially among your founding fathers. Basically, they believed that God created the universe, that he set everything in motion, but that he does not interfere. Something that goes along quite nicely with this, is an explanation I heard to the problem of evil and suffering. What would we be without constraints? We would be infinite beings, Gods. We would not have to make choices. We would not even have the ability to be good, to prove or disprove ourselves. There wouldn't be choices. To give meaning to life then, it would make sense for a God to put constraints on it, and to leave us playing the game. That's the only way that it would have any purpose. I might be wrong, but your description of the universe as being something a scientist would describe, is a tautology. It's only what a scientist would describe, because their method yields descriptive results. The venn diagram of the scientific method and theology do not overlap, and should not be thought of as if they did. I also think the big bang begs the question of what set it off. --- Why couldn't an all powerful being, who by your own definition is not limited by any constraints whatsoever, not be able to create a reality where lives would have meaning without suffering? To solve the problem of evil, one has to give up the claim that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent. Your argument takes away God's omnipotence. Also, is this god's own existence meaningless because it's an infinite being? Are choices really what gives existence purpose, and are those choices really worth, say, childhood (or really any) cancer, slavery, and all the other horrific facets of human life?	I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. As far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. Like others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. Something I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer: “Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.” James 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. I hope things can improve for you. --- Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith. Δ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even. --- I’m a touring musician and interact constantly with people of different beliefs (or lack of beliefs) around the world. I don’t get concerned too much with my friends being atheist, because I’d rather someone find their own faith and be a resource for discussion if they ever want it. Shoving stuff down people’s throat has always been counterproductive in my mind. My travels have validated my beliefs, while I’ve seen it do the opposite for others, and I’m not here to judge someone’s interpretation of life events, but I am glad to discuss. I guess the only other advice I have, are the two questions I ask myself anytime I’m mad or upset about a life circumstance: 1. Am I doing 100% without a doubt, the most I can do to help better my situation? 2. If I am, is there a way I can change the perspective of my frustrations to at least be beneficial for others to be around? I know someone people are dealt WAY worse problems than other, and it sounds like you got a really shitty hand. But I’m confident that even if the situation doesn’t get better, the way you use it can. --- Oh so you are artistically inclined? I think that's really cool, some of the most insightful people I've met are likewise. You definitely have a lot of emotional intelligence- and quite a few others here I see, mentioning them all is going to be a task. I think you bring up very valid points, the most helpful seems to stem around being less self-focused, am I right?	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	4	4	[ { "author": "GoThirdParty", "id": "e3lqrt4", "score": 123, "text": "I don’t disagree with you.\n\nHowever I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist.\n\nThere are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc\n\nSo I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be.", "timestamp": 1533404784 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lr7nv", "score": 87, "text": "Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me.", "timestamp": 1533405224 }, { "author": "I_am_Norwegian", "id": "e3lurq9", "score": 32, "text": "While I'm not religious, I'm sympathetic to religion, thought not organized religion, or the average religious person. There's a few perspectives that might be worth keeping in mind. There's Deism, which used to be much more popular, especially among your founding fathers. Basically, they believed that God created the universe, that he set everything in motion, but that he does not interfere. \n\nSomething that goes along quite nicely with this, is an explanation I heard to the problem of evil and suffering. What would we be without constraints? We would be infinite beings, Gods. We would not have to make choices. We would not even have the ability to be good, to prove or disprove ourselves. There wouldn't be choices. To give meaning to life then, it would make sense for a God to put constraints on it, and to leave us playing the game. That's the only way that it would have any purpose. \n\nI might be wrong, but your description of the universe as being something a scientist would describe, is a tautology. It's only what a scientist would describe, because their method yields descriptive results. The venn diagram of the scientific method and theology do not overlap, and should not be thought of as if they did. I also think the big bang begs the question of what set it off. ", "timestamp": 1533408829 }, { "author": "HybridVigor", "id": "e3m3lta", "score": 11, "text": "Why couldn't an all powerful being, who by your own definition is not limited by any constraints whatsoever, not be able to create a reality where lives would have meaning without suffering? To solve the problem of evil, one has to give up the claim that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, or omnipotent. Your argument takes away God's omnipotence.\n\nAlso, is this god's own existence meaningless because it's an infinite being? Are choices really what gives existence purpose, and are those choices really worth, say, childhood (or really any) cancer, slavery, and all the other horrific facets of human life?", "timestamp": 1533418102 } ]	[ { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lr6qu", "score": 96, "text": "I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. \n\nAs far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. \n\nLike others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. \n\nSomething I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer:\n\n\n“Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.”\n\nJames 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. \n\nI hope things can improve for you. ", "timestamp": 1533405198 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lrkbi", "score": 72, "text": "Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith.\n\nΔ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even.", "timestamp": 1533405577 }, { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3ls3r4", "score": 33, "text": "I’m a touring musician and interact constantly with people of different beliefs (or lack of beliefs) around the world. I don’t get concerned too much with my friends being atheist, because I’d rather someone find their own faith and be a resource for discussion if they ever want it. Shoving stuff down people’s throat has always been counterproductive in my mind. \n\nMy travels have validated my beliefs, while I’ve seen it do the opposite for others, and I’m not here to judge someone’s interpretation of life events, but I am glad to discuss. \n\nI guess the only other advice I have, are the two questions I ask myself anytime I’m mad or upset about a life circumstance:\n\n1. Am I doing 100% without a doubt, the most I can do to help better my situation?\n\n2. If I am, is there a way I can change the perspective of my frustrations to at least be beneficial for others to be around?\n\nI know someone people are dealt WAY worse problems than other, and it sounds like you got a really shitty hand. But I’m confident that even if the situation doesn’t get better, the way you use it can. ", "timestamp": 1533406116 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lv2r9", "score": 24, "text": "Oh so you are artistically inclined? I think that's really cool, some of the most insightful people I've met are likewise. You definitely have a lot of emotional intelligence- and quite a few others here I see, mentioning them all is going to be a task. \n\n\nI think you bring up very valid points, the most helpful seems to stem around being less self-focused, am I right? ", "timestamp": 1533409137 } ]	[ "e3lqrt4", "e3lr7nv", "e3lurq9", "e3m3lta" ]	[ "e3lr6qu", "e3lrkbi", "e3ls3r4", "e3lv2r9" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	The reality from a philosophical view, I think, is that we don’t know if suffering is an actually evil thing. The so called “logical form of evil” isn’t convincing proof of a lack of god because we simply don’t understand the purpose of evil or suffering. We also don’t have the ability to measure all good and evil, we can’t say decisively which one prevails in society. The way I see it, if god exists (and I do think he exists, to some extent, though I don’t consider myself religious) then suffering is pretty much fine. Victor Frankle said that if there is meaning to everything, then the suffering probably does have grand point. I mean, if god exists, death isn’t a bad thing, it could even be consider a good thing since the struggles of life would be beyond us and we can return to peace. There would still be evil in the world, but if death is actually one of the best things that can happen to a person, then all the death in the world would be a fantastic thing since it would take away the struggle. Put simply, I don’t believe all the evil in the world proves anything about God. It just proves we don’t like it, which I’m fine with. I’m glad injustice upsets everyone. --- Suffering might not be evil, but it does suck ass for the sufferer.	[removed] --- Sorry, I am genuinely not sure. Is this a genuine attempt to help, or are you being snarky? Assuming the best for now.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	2	2	[ { "author": "hippynoize", "id": "e3lyk27", "score": 47, "text": "The reality from a philosophical view, I think, is that we don’t know if suffering is an actually evil thing. The so called “logical form of evil” isn’t convincing proof of a lack of god because we simply don’t understand the purpose of evil or suffering. We also don’t have the ability to measure all good and evil, we can’t say decisively which one prevails in society.\n\nThe way I see it, if god exists (and I do think he exists, to some extent, though I don’t consider myself religious) then suffering is pretty much fine. Victor Frankle said that if there is meaning to everything, then the suffering probably does have grand point. I mean, if god exists, death isn’t a bad thing, it could even be consider a good thing since the struggles of life would be beyond us and we can return to peace. There would still be evil in the world, but if death is actually one of the best things that can happen to a person, then all the death in the world would be a fantastic thing since it would take away the struggle. \n\nPut simply, I don’t believe all the evil in the world proves anything about God. It just proves we don’t like it, which I’m fine with. I’m glad injustice upsets everyone. ", "timestamp": 1533412760 }, { "author": "Zaptruder", "id": "e3mjeeg", "score": 4, "text": "Suffering might not be evil, but it does suck ass for the sufferer.", "timestamp": 1533435186 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e3lmx8q", "score": -4, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1533400951 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lnjbo", "score": 21, "text": "Sorry, I am genuinely not sure. Is this a genuine attempt to help, or are you being snarky? Assuming the best for now.", "timestamp": 1533401575 } ]	[ "e3lyk27", "e3mjeeg" ]	[ "e3lmx8q", "e3lnjbo" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a "god" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism. While this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god? You can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to. Its common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent. As far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole. But even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time. TLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter. edits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone. --- Why should we matter to it? The universe is at least by human conception infinite. As others and you have already said god exists but It's indifferent to us. I see no reason to think why it should have cared. If it did care that to me couldn't be god. Such an entity would beyond our understanding and if it cared about us would be very ungodlike.	I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. I’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. What I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. People with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. --- I actually like this response. There is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut. Your insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you? Δ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	2	2	[ { "author": "skaizm", "id": "e3lrxbr", "score": 584, "text": "As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a \"god\" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism.\n\nWhile this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god?\n\nYou can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to.\n\n\nIts common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent.\n\nAs far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole.\nBut even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time.\n\n\n\nTLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter.\n\nedits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone.\n\n", "timestamp": 1533405941 }, { "author": "arokthemild", "id": "e3mbtkw", "score": 5, "text": "Why should we matter to it? The universe is at least by human conception infinite. As others and you have already said god exists but It's indifferent to us. I see no reason to think why it should have cared. If it did care that to me couldn't be god. Such an entity would beyond our understanding and if it cared about us would be very ungodlike.", "timestamp": 1533426782 } ]	[ { "author": "loveandsubmit", "id": "e3lnjrv", "score": 236, "text": "I can’t change your view on the existence of a god, mine is not very different. \n\nI’m very sorry to hear your struggles. I can see in every sentence how heartbreaking this has been for you. \n\nWhat I wanted to tell you is that indifference, as you mention, is of course there but it’s not black and white. There are levels of indifference. Some people are far more compassionate and even generous than others. And people choose who to be compassionate to and who to be indifferent to, as well. \n\nPeople with disabilities tend to either be positive “I will conquer my hurdles” types or negative “I can’t conquer my hurdles the world sucks” types. Which of those types they are tends to be more a cynical decision based on what helps them stay connected to friends and family than anything else, I think. Friends and family will gradually pull away from the negative, while they become more supportive and generous with the positive. People learn from that. It’s sad, because the negative people need support even more. But I think it’s human nature. \n\n", "timestamp": 1533401587 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lnyrk", "score": 142, "text": "I actually like this response.\n\nThere is still some part of me willing to fight (and conquer my hurdles as you say), why else am I here right? I'm sharing with you all, the darkest of my thoughts, the ones I try to keep at bay for the sake of my immediate family. To them, I am this unstoppable, sometimes unfeeling juggernaut.\n\nYour insights on human nature are spot on; however, isn't the evolutionary purpose of sadness to rally support from those around you?\n\nΔ You gave me some insight at least that I could use should we try again with a gofundme for my wife. Thanks for that and your empathy and understanding.", "timestamp": 1533402019 } ]	[ "e3lrxbr", "e3mbtkw" ]	[ "e3lnjrv", "e3lnyrk" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering." -Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher Life sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going. --- Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it. --- Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. --- > Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. Yes, it is stopping it. In this case your meanings are themselves meaningless. Just subjective feelings flailing in futility against the objective fact that there is no meaning, and therefore all created meanings are artificial, worthless excuses to avoid suicide. You can have your meaning, just like some can have their God, but it's delusional. --- Δ Yes, part of me is torn between living in objective and subjective realities. I verge on thinking it's OK to create something from nothing, certainly with things like meaning so long as it's not harming others. --- Try thinking about what should form the basis. For me, knowledge and the pursuit of it are good, and self-improvement is good. I ended up at many philosophical ideas from this, such as Plato's, Nietzsche's, and Camus's. I also found success with letting go of the concept that kindness is always the necessary course of action, and instead believe that kindness is important often, but not always. This allowed me to let go of the concept of everyone having the same value, letting me realize democracy's flaws, and then reading Plato made me better able to articulate these thoughts. --- Δ Wow it's clear you're a bit ahead of my in Philosophy. I am slowly getting there, it's a relatively recent pursuit of mine. I will explore your recommendations further. --- If you want to get into existentialism, I would seriously recommend reading some Sartre and Beauvoir (if you can get a good translation), as they were, along with Camus, the main founders of existentialism. Even just exerpts or other people's analysis would be good, but I reccomend the source material. They have a really fascinating life story as well which is contextually important to their philosophy. They were all close friends from who lived through the Nazi occupation of Paris and are considered some of the most foremost modern philosophers. Fun fact: Beauvoir essentially started the second wave of feminism with her existentialist novel The Second Sex but its translated poorly, namely because Beauvoir slept around a lot and pissed off her publisher.	I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. As far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. Like others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. Something I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer: “Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.” James 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. I hope things can improve for you. --- You think most cancer is caused by man made things? :/ --- Pollution and processed foods are the two main causes of cancer. Both man made. --- We are designed to get cancer. While diet and pollution does increase your chances, your chances will also increase as a function of age. Having worked briefly on pediatric cancer research, I can't possibly fathom why a kid having cancer is the result of bad decisions. --- I said they were the main reasons, not the only. And it’s not crazy to believe that pollution, or poor diets accelerated it. Obviously some cases are out of our hands. And studies have shown massive drop offs in cancer rates among people who abstain from processed foods, sugar, etc. --- I think the main reasons are out of our hands. And believe me, I've read the studies, and abstaining from processed foods is not a miracle strategy. Look, I'm not trying to attack your faith, it's just very dangerous to take personal responsibility for things like genetic predisposition or income. Sometimes you just gotta admit that the world isn't cut and dry and good people get the short end of the stick for no reason. Where does God play into it? I don't really know or care, that's for you to think about. I'm just going to dispute statements like "negative things are because of free will". --- I told the OP, some people are absolutely dealt WAY worse hands than others. But it’s the product of free will. And when I see free will, it doesn’t mean “it’s that persons fault”. Just like it’s not a persons fault when they get hit by a drunk driver, it was free will that caused it. I just think it’s unproductive to spend your day thinking up of more and more reasons as to why your life sucks. Obviously you can’t just wish these internal feelings away, but over time I think a brain can be trained to think more positively. It just takes a ton of effort and sometimes years of time. --- How would hurricanes causing lots of death and suffering be caused by free will? Or tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes? Humans can't impact those and even leaving out things like volcanos where you can (sometimes) choose to live elsewhere there are still natural events not controlled by humans that can and do cause suffering. How are these because of free will?	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	8	8	[ { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lqlwu", "score": 126, "text": "\"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.\"\n\n-Friedrich Nietzsche, atheist philosopher\n\nLife sucks. But from my perspective, you would never have happiness without suffering. This is why perfection is so nonsensical a concept to me. But remember that meaning is out there. It might not make you happy, but it will give you a reason to keep going.", "timestamp": 1533404624 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lqpmw", "score": 66, "text": "Δ That's an interesting perspective. Basically saying happiness is understood with it's opposite? Yes, meaning is something we can construct, basically our own interpretation which doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality. I like it.", "timestamp": 1533404724 }, { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3lrgvj", "score": 27, "text": "Yeah. Existentialism is pretty nice. Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine.", "timestamp": 1533405481 }, { "author": "Rasasta", "id": "e3lxt3q", "score": 3, "text": "> Life might not have it's own meaning, but that's not stopping me from having mine. \n\nYes, it is stopping it. In this case your meanings are themselves meaningless. Just subjective feelings flailing in futility against the objective fact that there is no meaning, and therefore all created meanings are artificial, worthless excuses to avoid suicide. You can have your meaning, just like some can have their God, but it's delusional.", "timestamp": 1533411971 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lyajo", "score": 27, "text": "Δ Yes, part of me is torn between living in objective and subjective realities. I verge on thinking it's OK to create something from nothing, certainly with things like meaning so long as it's not harming others.", "timestamp": 1533412485 }, { "author": "SlouchingToElysium", "id": "e3m52on", "score": 7, "text": "Try thinking about what should form the basis. For me, knowledge and the pursuit of it are good, and self-improvement is good. I ended up at many philosophical ideas from this, such as Plato's, Nietzsche's, and Camus's. I also found success with letting go of the concept that kindness is always the necessary course of action, and instead believe that kindness is important often, but not always. This allowed me to let go of the concept of everyone having the same value, letting me realize democracy's flaws, and then reading Plato made me better able to articulate these thoughts.", "timestamp": 1533419622 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3mm3di", "score": 12, "text": "Δ Wow it's clear you're a bit ahead of my in Philosophy. I am slowly getting there, it's a relatively recent pursuit of mine. I will explore your recommendations further.", "timestamp": 1533438221 }, { "author": "LuxPup", "id": "e3mwuun", "score": 5, "text": "If you want to get into existentialism, I would seriously recommend reading some Sartre and Beauvoir (if you can get a good translation), as they were, along with Camus, the main founders of existentialism. Even just exerpts or other people's analysis would be good, but I reccomend the source material. They have a really fascinating life story as well which is contextually important to their philosophy. They were all close friends from who lived through the Nazi occupation of Paris and are considered some of the most foremost modern philosophers. \n\nFun fact: Beauvoir essentially started the second wave of feminism with her existentialist novel The Second Sex but its translated poorly, namely because Beauvoir slept around a lot and pissed off her publisher.", "timestamp": 1533452840 } ]	[ { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lr6qu", "score": 96, "text": "I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. \n\nAs far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. \n\nLike others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. \n\nSomething I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer:\n\n\n“Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.”\n\nJames 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. \n\nI hope things can improve for you. ", "timestamp": 1533405198 }, { "author": "vehementi", "id": "e3ltoks", "score": 12, "text": "You think most cancer is caused by man made things? :/", "timestamp": 1533407711 }, { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lu9pv", "score": 4, "text": "Pollution and processed foods are the two main causes of cancer. Both man made. ", "timestamp": 1533408323 }, { "author": "hearty_soup", "id": "e3lv3q6", "score": 19, "text": "We are designed to get cancer. While diet and pollution does increase your chances, your chances will also increase as a function of age.\n\nHaving worked briefly on pediatric cancer research, I can't possibly fathom why a kid having cancer is the result of bad decisions.", "timestamp": 1533409164 }, { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lvdfr", "score": 5, "text": "I said they were the main reasons, not the only. And it’s not crazy to believe that pollution, or poor diets accelerated it. Obviously some cases are out of our hands. \n\nAnd studies have shown massive drop offs in cancer rates among people who abstain from processed foods, sugar, etc. \n", "timestamp": 1533409434 }, { "author": "hearty_soup", "id": "e3lw2pm", "score": 14, "text": "I think the main reasons are out of our hands. And believe me, I've read the studies, and abstaining from processed foods is not a miracle strategy.\n\nLook, I'm not trying to attack your faith, it's just very dangerous to take personal responsibility for things like genetic predisposition or income. Sometimes you just gotta admit that the world isn't cut and dry and good people get the short end of the stick for no reason. Where does God play into it? I don't really know or care, that's for you to think about. I'm just going to dispute statements like \"negative things are because of free will\".", "timestamp": 1533410163 }, { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lwc3d", "score": 5, "text": "I told the OP, some people are absolutely dealt WAY worse hands than others. But it’s the product of free will. And when I see free will, it doesn’t mean “it’s that persons fault”. Just like it’s not a persons fault when they get hit by a drunk driver, it was free will that caused it. \n\nI just think it’s unproductive to spend your day thinking up of more and more reasons as to why your life sucks. \n\nObviously you can’t just wish these internal feelings away, but over time I think a brain can be trained to think more positively. It just takes a ton of effort and sometimes years of time. ", "timestamp": 1533410435 }, { "author": "Le_Fapo", "id": "e3lyk82", "score": 8, "text": "How would hurricanes causing lots of death and suffering be caused by free will? Or tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes? Humans can't impact those and even leaving out things like volcanos where you can (sometimes) choose to live elsewhere there are still natural events not controlled by humans that can and do cause suffering. How are these because of free will?", "timestamp": 1533412765 } ]	[ "e3lqlwu", "e3lqpmw", "e3lrgvj", "e3lxt3q", "e3lyajo", "e3m52on", "e3mm3di", "e3mwuun" ]	[ "e3lr6qu", "e3ltoks", "e3lu9pv", "e3lv3q6", "e3lvdfr", "e3lw2pm", "e3lwc3d", "e3lyk82" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a "god" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism. While this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god? You can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to. Its common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent. As far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole. But even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time. TLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter. edits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone. --- Δ Actually, I have been entertaining that exact idea- that perhaps god exists, but is indifferent to us and not necessarily evil. Thanks for helping me along. You're incredibly insightful on a number of levels, especially your extension into the plight of the poor vs rich. I also agree that human ego is really over-inflated, by it's very nature self-centered. We do over estimate our importance. Understanding that might be a key coping mechanism, smacks of stoicism even, which I can respect :) I wondered what happened with my Karma, kinda relieved now that /r/assistance is an option. I am already making my battle plan how to get to the next step. I wasn't necessarily asking for that, but I can't thank you enough! I think also just saying you hope you read how I conquered this is so inspiring. Thanks for that I'm almost crying. It's nearly impossible for me to cry (in my entire life, I can count it on one hand), but it does make me feel better when it happens. I have a BS in Biology that i'm only recently putting to use. I came up with an idea to cure recalcitrant cancers and ran it by my wife's Oncologists. They liked it, said would write my recommendation to go back for my MD/PhD. My wife reached out the Lung Cancer Alliance and a few weeks ago they paid for our flight and hotel stay in DC for their conference where she (even in her fragile state) spoke before the senate and congress, advocating for lung cancer patients. While there I had access to really top level researchers that also attended the conference. The ones from Johns Hopkins really liked the idea, no one could poke a hole in it. In theory it could cure any cancer that can be DNA sequenced and compared to normal cells. Maybe I should try to get into school, they are more forgiving of variability in performance and disabilities in general. Maybe I'll cure cancer and write about it, about the help I got here in my darkest moment. Those small acts of kindness you mention.. They mean so much in a time like this. --- Explain your cancer theory in more detail. I'm highly skeptical and this is starting to sound a bit like one of those creative writing exercises people do on Reddit. Cancer is incredibly complicated and highly varied, so claiming you have a universal cure that many doctors supported when you don't even have a masters is.... A little suspect. DNA sequencing is hardly a way to cure cancer by itself. It's pretty apparent cancer cells are mutated. That's not a mechanism for curing something.	I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. As far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. Like others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. Something I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer: “Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.” James 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. I hope things can improve for you. --- Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith. Δ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even. --- I’m a touring musician and interact constantly with people of different beliefs (or lack of beliefs) around the world. I don’t get concerned too much with my friends being atheist, because I’d rather someone find their own faith and be a resource for discussion if they ever want it. Shoving stuff down people’s throat has always been counterproductive in my mind. My travels have validated my beliefs, while I’ve seen it do the opposite for others, and I’m not here to judge someone’s interpretation of life events, but I am glad to discuss. I guess the only other advice I have, are the two questions I ask myself anytime I’m mad or upset about a life circumstance: 1. Am I doing 100% without a doubt, the most I can do to help better my situation? 2. If I am, is there a way I can change the perspective of my frustrations to at least be beneficial for others to be around? I know someone people are dealt WAY worse problems than other, and it sounds like you got a really shitty hand. But I’m confident that even if the situation doesn’t get better, the way you use it can.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "skaizm", "id": "e3lrxbr", "score": 584, "text": "As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a \"god\" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism.\n\nWhile this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god?\n\nYou can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to.\n\n\nIts common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent.\n\nAs far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole.\nBut even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time.\n\n\n\nTLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter.\n\nedits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone.\n\n", "timestamp": 1533405941 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lta5i", "score": 243, "text": "Δ Actually, I have been entertaining that exact idea- that perhaps god exists, but is indifferent to us and not necessarily evil. Thanks for helping me along. You're incredibly insightful on a number of levels, especially your extension into the plight of the poor vs rich. I also agree that human ego is really over-inflated, by it's very nature self-centered. We do over estimate our importance. Understanding that might be a key coping mechanism, smacks of stoicism even, which I can respect :)\n\nI wondered what happened with my Karma, kinda relieved now that /r/assistance is an option. I am already making my battle plan how to get to the next step. I wasn't necessarily asking for that, but I can't thank you enough!\n\nI think also just saying you hope you read how I conquered this is so inspiring. Thanks for that I'm almost crying. It's nearly impossible for me to cry (in my entire life, I can count it on one hand), but it does make me feel better when it happens. I have a BS in Biology that i'm only recently putting to use. I came up with an idea to cure recalcitrant cancers and ran it by my wife's Oncologists. They liked it, said would write my recommendation to go back for my MD/PhD. My wife reached out the Lung Cancer Alliance and a few weeks ago they paid for our flight and hotel stay in DC for their conference where she (even in her fragile state) spoke before the senate and congress, advocating for lung cancer patients. While there I had access to really top level researchers that also attended the conference. The ones from Johns Hopkins really liked the idea, no one could poke a hole in it. In theory it could cure any cancer that can be DNA sequenced and compared to normal cells. Maybe I should try to get into school, they are more forgiving of variability in performance and disabilities in general. Maybe I'll cure cancer and write about it, about the help I got here in my darkest moment.\n\nThose small acts of kindness you mention.. They mean so much in a time like this.", "timestamp": 1533407302 }, { "author": "Panzerdrek", "id": "e3n0x0z", "score": 32, "text": "Explain your cancer theory in more detail. I'm highly skeptical and this is starting to sound a bit like one of those creative writing exercises people do on Reddit. Cancer is incredibly complicated and highly varied, so claiming you have a universal cure that many doctors supported when you don't even have a masters is.... A little suspect. DNA sequencing is hardly a way to cure cancer by itself. It's pretty apparent cancer cells are mutated. That's not a mechanism for curing something. ", "timestamp": 1533461055 } ]	[ { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lr6qu", "score": 96, "text": "I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. \n\nAs far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. \n\nLike others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. \n\nSomething I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer:\n\n\n“Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.”\n\nJames 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. \n\nI hope things can improve for you. ", "timestamp": 1533405198 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lrkbi", "score": 72, "text": "Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith.\n\nΔ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even.", "timestamp": 1533405577 }, { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3ls3r4", "score": 33, "text": "I’m a touring musician and interact constantly with people of different beliefs (or lack of beliefs) around the world. I don’t get concerned too much with my friends being atheist, because I’d rather someone find their own faith and be a resource for discussion if they ever want it. Shoving stuff down people’s throat has always been counterproductive in my mind. \n\nMy travels have validated my beliefs, while I’ve seen it do the opposite for others, and I’m not here to judge someone’s interpretation of life events, but I am glad to discuss. \n\nI guess the only other advice I have, are the two questions I ask myself anytime I’m mad or upset about a life circumstance:\n\n1. Am I doing 100% without a doubt, the most I can do to help better my situation?\n\n2. If I am, is there a way I can change the perspective of my frustrations to at least be beneficial for others to be around?\n\nI know someone people are dealt WAY worse problems than other, and it sounds like you got a really shitty hand. But I’m confident that even if the situation doesn’t get better, the way you use it can. ", "timestamp": 1533406116 } ]	[ "e3lrxbr", "e3lta5i", "e3n0x0z" ]	[ "e3lr6qu", "e3lrkbi", "e3ls3r4" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	I don’t disagree with you. However I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist. There are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc So I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be. --- Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me. --- I think your interpretation of common christian beliefs is mistaken. The idea isn't "god has a plan, so I'm not going to help you"--christians donate massive amounts of time and money to charity. The idea is that you should not pity yourself because there's something more going on here than just pure suffering. Don't just wallow in your suffering, carry on. That's the idea. Now, everyone else needs to help you (but of course you must also help yourself)	As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a "god" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism. While this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god? You can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to. Its common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent. As far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole. But even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time. TLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter. edits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone. --- Δ Actually, I have been entertaining that exact idea- that perhaps god exists, but is indifferent to us and not necessarily evil. Thanks for helping me along. You're incredibly insightful on a number of levels, especially your extension into the plight of the poor vs rich. I also agree that human ego is really over-inflated, by it's very nature self-centered. We do over estimate our importance. Understanding that might be a key coping mechanism, smacks of stoicism even, which I can respect :) I wondered what happened with my Karma, kinda relieved now that /r/assistance is an option. I am already making my battle plan how to get to the next step. I wasn't necessarily asking for that, but I can't thank you enough! I think also just saying you hope you read how I conquered this is so inspiring. Thanks for that I'm almost crying. It's nearly impossible for me to cry (in my entire life, I can count it on one hand), but it does make me feel better when it happens. I have a BS in Biology that i'm only recently putting to use. I came up with an idea to cure recalcitrant cancers and ran it by my wife's Oncologists. They liked it, said would write my recommendation to go back for my MD/PhD. My wife reached out the Lung Cancer Alliance and a few weeks ago they paid for our flight and hotel stay in DC for their conference where she (even in her fragile state) spoke before the senate and congress, advocating for lung cancer patients. While there I had access to really top level researchers that also attended the conference. The ones from Johns Hopkins really liked the idea, no one could poke a hole in it. In theory it could cure any cancer that can be DNA sequenced and compared to normal cells. Maybe I should try to get into school, they are more forgiving of variability in performance and disabilities in general. Maybe I'll cure cancer and write about it, about the help I got here in my darkest moment. Those small acts of kindness you mention.. They mean so much in a time like this. --- Want to reemphasize that im very not religious, but the religious always say "god helps those that help themselves." Part of the human condition is the struggle that will always eventually end in death. Life, the struggle, the in between, call it what you will, is what you make of it, go out and make it. Edits: grammar	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "GoThirdParty", "id": "e3lqrt4", "score": 123, "text": "I don’t disagree with you.\n\nHowever I will try change your view slightly in that I accept that a god probably does not exist as humans imagine it to exist.\n\nThere are alternatives: god is indifferent. God is limited in power (whatever that means). God is not all knowing. God is dead (whatever that means). Etc etc\n\nSo I’m not trying to convince you god exists but rather it is possible a god exists that isn’t everything that most theists believe it to be.", "timestamp": 1533404784 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lr7nv", "score": 87, "text": "Δ Actually, that's entirely possible right? Maybe I am challenging the views commonly held in the southern most portion of the United States. To me, I could even entertain the possibility that we're part of something akin to an ancestor simulation, with someone at the controls who bears little resemblance to what we consider a god. If such a god exists, you're right. Absolutely can't be what is conceived by the family and friends surrounding me.", "timestamp": 1533405224 }, { "author": "goldandguns", "id": "e3nbqp6", "score": 1, "text": "I think your interpretation of common christian beliefs is mistaken. The idea isn't \"god has a plan, so I'm not going to help you\"--christians donate massive amounts of time and money to charity. The idea is that you should not pity yourself because there's something more going on here than just pure suffering. Don't just wallow in your suffering, carry on. That's the idea. Now, everyone else needs to help you (but of course you must also help yourself)", "timestamp": 1533479546 } ]	[ { "author": "skaizm", "id": "e3lrxbr", "score": 584, "text": "As a non religious individual I often consider the fact that a \"god\" may very well exist, but considering the scope of both power and persuasion an individual of a god calibre would employ, it would be reasonable to assume that such an entity would view us as interesting and important as you would a single celled organism.\n\nWhile this god may very well know of our existence it would be largely uninterested and or completely ignorant of us as individual entities. It would be akin to you throwing away a moldy loaf of bread, you may well be away that there are billions of living organisms there, but youre more concerned with having to run to the market again. Sure, you could easily give that mold culture the means to survive indefinetly and even propser, does this make you a wicked god?\n\nYou can see this type of escalates behavior even among humans, those that rise to staggering levels of wealth usually can see and comprehend the plight of the poor, but tend to offer little or no compassion or understanding, something I'm sure in your situarion can attest to.\n\n\nIts common of humanity to perceive ourselves as important despite the fact that in the grand scheme of things, we probably, as cynical as it may sound, just arent.\n\nAs far as the universe being indifferent to suffering, you're likely right, as a whole.\nBut even small acts of kindness on individual basis can profoundly change that. For what its worth, I took the few spare moments i had to up vote everything I could find of yours to get you the karma needed for your post. I too, among far to many others are in a situation similar to your own. I wish you well through all of the trials and tribulations you will endure, and hope to read about how you conquered them in a post in a few years time.\n\n\n\nTLDR: god, gods(or God) may very well exist and we just aren't significant enough to matter.\n\nedits: some grammar mistakes I made on phone.\n\n", "timestamp": 1533405941 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lta5i", "score": 243, "text": "Δ Actually, I have been entertaining that exact idea- that perhaps god exists, but is indifferent to us and not necessarily evil. Thanks for helping me along. You're incredibly insightful on a number of levels, especially your extension into the plight of the poor vs rich. I also agree that human ego is really over-inflated, by it's very nature self-centered. We do over estimate our importance. Understanding that might be a key coping mechanism, smacks of stoicism even, which I can respect :)\n\nI wondered what happened with my Karma, kinda relieved now that /r/assistance is an option. I am already making my battle plan how to get to the next step. I wasn't necessarily asking for that, but I can't thank you enough!\n\nI think also just saying you hope you read how I conquered this is so inspiring. Thanks for that I'm almost crying. It's nearly impossible for me to cry (in my entire life, I can count it on one hand), but it does make me feel better when it happens. I have a BS in Biology that i'm only recently putting to use. I came up with an idea to cure recalcitrant cancers and ran it by my wife's Oncologists. They liked it, said would write my recommendation to go back for my MD/PhD. My wife reached out the Lung Cancer Alliance and a few weeks ago they paid for our flight and hotel stay in DC for their conference where she (even in her fragile state) spoke before the senate and congress, advocating for lung cancer patients. While there I had access to really top level researchers that also attended the conference. The ones from Johns Hopkins really liked the idea, no one could poke a hole in it. In theory it could cure any cancer that can be DNA sequenced and compared to normal cells. Maybe I should try to get into school, they are more forgiving of variability in performance and disabilities in general. Maybe I'll cure cancer and write about it, about the help I got here in my darkest moment.\n\nThose small acts of kindness you mention.. They mean so much in a time like this.", "timestamp": 1533407302 }, { "author": "skaizm", "id": "e3lth56", "score": 37, "text": "Want to reemphasize that im very not religious, but the religious always say \"god helps those that help themselves.\" Part of the human condition is the struggle that will always eventually end in death. Life, the struggle, the in between, call it what you will, is what you make of it, go out and make it.\n\nEdits: grammar", "timestamp": 1533407499 } ]	[ "e3lqrt4", "e3lr7nv", "e3nbqp6" ]	[ "e3lrxbr", "e3lta5i", "e3lth56" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. As far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. Like others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. Something I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer: “Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.” James 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. I hope things can improve for you. --- Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith. Δ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even. --- I would suggest that you open up to your friend, you both may be able to help each other learn much more about the human condition. And it could bring you even closer together as friends.	Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing. Humans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die. Some suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people. --- Yes, with our given physics, suffering is inevitable. But if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. Isn't that something the ultimate game player could do? Where conscious experience could still be a natural consequence of his laws, but no suffering ensues. From my understanding of physics and math, there's nothing preventing infinities, it's just not something we typically encounter or are aware of. --- Well in Christianity God has promised to eventually create such a world. Indeed that was God's plan from the get go in Eden. We currently live in an inperfect world due to sin but in the end God will establish a new kingdom. That is the foundation of Christianity. Agree or disagree with it as you will but Christians have never believed that we live in a perfect or just world.	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	3	3	[ { "author": "ryankirbz", "id": "e3lr6qu", "score": 96, "text": "I’m a Christian, and my stance on this is that almost all negative things on this earth are products of free will. Whether it’s the pollution in the air causing cancer, earthquakes from fracking, or bad decisions we make with our diets. \n\nAs far as all the “it’s God’s plan” stuff Christians always say. I think it’s a phrase thrown around by people promoting the lie of “when you become a Christian, life gets better.” That’s absolutely not the case 100% of the time. \n\nLike others have said, I’m not trying to convince you to believe in God. I think that’s between a person and God, and some people need an experience to believe. \n\nSomething I’ve always remembered was what my dad said when he had esophageal cancer:\n\n\n“Don’t pray that I’m healed, pray that God can use me in a way that benefits others, even if it means using my death to help someone else.”\n\nJames 1:2-3 is one of my favorite verses when I’m facing tough times. \n\nI hope things can improve for you. ", "timestamp": 1533405198 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lrkbi", "score": 72, "text": "Hello there. You sound like one of my closest friends, also a Christian (and like you doesn't buy into prosperity.) He doesn't know I am atheist, I keep it from him because he would be very concerned and possibly hurt by the truth. Likewise, I don't want to hurt you. I value your perspective and I think your insights are a good ambassador of your faith.\n\nΔ Basically, you're advocating for selflessness and that does hold appeal with me. The self (personal identity) could very well be an illusion even.", "timestamp": 1533405577 }, { "author": "kaeganc", "id": "e3mazor", "score": 6, "text": "I would suggest that you open up to your friend, you both may be able to help each other learn much more about the human condition. And it could bring you even closer together as friends.", "timestamp": 1533425890 } ]	[ { "author": "pillbinge", "id": "e3lowxy", "score": 39, "text": "Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing.\n \nHumans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die.\n\nSome suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people.", "timestamp": 1533402971 }, { "author": "joshingkatie", "id": "e3lq9bg", "score": 37, "text": "Yes, with our given physics, suffering is inevitable. But if god is omnipotent, he can create a universe with laws where no one has to die. Isn't that something the ultimate game player could do? Where conscious experience could still be a natural consequence of his laws, but no suffering ensues. From my understanding of physics and math, there's nothing preventing infinities, it's just not something we typically encounter or are aware of.", "timestamp": 1533404280 }, { "author": "jerothattallguy", "id": "e3luu9i", "score": 9, "text": "Well in Christianity God has promised to eventually create such a world. Indeed that was God's plan from the get go in Eden. We currently live in an inperfect world due to sin but in the end God will establish a new kingdom. That is the foundation of Christianity. Agree or disagree with it as you will but Christians have never believed that we live in a perfect or just world.", "timestamp": 1533408897 } ]	[ "e3lr6qu", "e3lrkbi", "e3mazor" ]	[ "e3lowxy", "e3lq9bg", "e3luu9i" ]
CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	>I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. You have an extremely common view of God - a creator - that I find alien. This idea that IF our world was in fact created by an intelligent being, that we'd all be happier. And while there's a lot to be said for theodicy and religion, we can put all that aside and focus on God - a broad theism - and ask a simple question. What if God really doesn't care all that much? Families die every day? You see suffering? Your life is miserable? Alright: so? Why would a creator necessarily care about any of that? Again, I'm putting aside all the arguments for classical theism and the necessary traits we'd expect of God, of religion, etc. The fact is, all of the suffering of the universe - and a whole lot more - is completely compatible with God 'being there'. Existing. Hell, God may be getting a kick out of all of this. And just to tackle another objection: "The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning." First, I wouldn't expect an 'appearance of fine-tuning' if the universe wasn't intelligently created. I'd expect no appearance of fine-tuning. Second, scientists have no test for 'whether the universe indicates design'. No scientific test anyway. At most, they have a philosophy, and scientists' philosophies nowadays tend to be pretty crude and inadequate. tl;dr - God can exist and not give a rip about you, and science can't detect design's presence or lack. You can be angry at God if He does in fact exist, but if He's omnipotent, then a fat lot of good that's going to do you. May as well get angry at gravity while you're at it. --- >This idea that IF our world was in fact created by an intelligent being, that we'd all be happier. It is unfortunately all too common, and a side-effect of how much our view of the world, humanity, and the divine are all informed by experiences. It's not instinctual for us to be rational. Rather, we naturally find ourselves rationalizing what we already believe... based on experiences, intuitions, upbringing, etc. I only mention all that because from a theological perspective this question was pretty well answered by Leibnitz, the same dude that invented calculus. He figured that if those Christian ideals about God were true (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence), or at least that God embodied to the greatest degree power, knowledge, and goodness... well then the world would already be as good as it could be. Such a God would have created the world such that it's as good as can be. Voltaire wrote Candide / Optimism to mock the idea. Leibnitz's stand in has all manner of bad stuff happen to him but maintains his optimistic worldview. That's an appeal to emotions and experience though. It doesn't counter the argument. No amount of bad stuff can. If God is real and as the traditional monotheists view said God, then we already live in a world which has the minimal amount of evil, suffering, chaos, etc, to still achieve whatever its purpose is. Thus, to your point, and the reason I'm responding at all... there is no rational argument that suggests "if God were real, we'd be happier." The truth is "if God were real, we're already has happy as we could be."	Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing. Humans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die. Some suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people. --- [removed]	94k9lf	CMV: The universe indifferent to suffering, god is not there	Please do not downvote me, even if you resent my views. I am trying to build up 300 Karma so I can ask for assistance on my family on /r/assistance. Even after a year, I am struggling to build even 200ish Karma up. People say Karma doesn't matter, but in our case it does. I am not asking for upvotes, merely that you do not harm this pursuit. I realize the view I hold may be considered unkind, but what me and my whole family need at this point is kindness. I became physically disabled in 2008, total and permanent disability awarded through SSA. Years go by and my wife developed stage-IV lung cancer (despite never smoking) while pregnant at the age of 29. She is very likely to die and leave me with three kids (all under age 7) that I will struggle (putting it mildly) to support. I attempt to go back to work (because she couldn't anymore), after trying my absolute hardest it worsens my condition and I just got laid off due to lack of productivity. Since I earned significant income in my attempt, SSA revoked my disability, upon trying to have it re-instated SSA informed me my attempts to re-apply for benefits will fail. My family and social network in general has struggles of their own, at capacity in their willingness to help us. At the rate things are going, we are going to be homeless, my wife will be dead and my children will be taken away by social services. I cannot work at this point and I have no prospective income in the foreseeable future. I get the impression that all people are struggling to some degree, otherwise they would help us more. Struggling is largely accepted, human biases naturally make people less inclined to help those in need. Like assuming others might help-like god maybe? I hear all the time from my friends that god has a plan. That god's trying to teach us something with this cancer battle. That everything will work out, trust in god. That maybe we're not right with god and have invited demons to oppress our household. When things go good for my friends, they praise god for favoring them and rewarding their faith. When things go wrong for us, they just pray for us, without any effect. When I walk into the halls of MD Anderson Cancer Treatment Center (almost daily), the absence of god is glaringly obvious to me. Young mothers, little children- all dying, horribly maimed by cancer, they are horribly disfigured and horrific numbers of amputations of every variety. How can this be part of god's plan? What can these poor people learn? What omnipotent being comes up with suffering as a way of "soul-making" or any other theodicy I've heard people make for these atrocities, his apparent indifference? The reality is there is no god. The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning. I would expect more from an omnipotent god. I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. Conscious beings wouldn't have to kill and eat/pain other conscious beings for survival, the bible would be this perfect literary work and not rife with glaring contradictions and condoning morally questionable acts that were once acceptable for the time. In our case, we did not earn our misfortune, just some people by random chance have everything go wrong. As unlikely as it is (and indeed unlikely as our specific universe/laws are,) roll the dice enough and it happens. You'll find that a rare few people have extremely bad runs of 'luck' and conversely, a few with very good runs. The majority will fall in the middle of good and bad things happening to them, but nothing catastrophically bad or sensationally spectacular in their lifetimes. These people will attribute the random goings on as divine intervention, the will of god. They will interpret massive failure they see as the result of personal failings/judgement from god. They will interpret extreme success as brilliance with god's approval shining down. Please change my view, I am in a horribly dark place devoid of all hope. I have no idea on a path forward, everything I try to do is not enough to save our family. I am trying to stave off a sense of learned helplessness at this point. So much pain and failure despite my very best efforts. Families silently die every day, but you just don't know- that's why it's a silent death. I am not the silent type, I will make a desperate scream in hopes it will be heard. My friends surround me saying god is there, I see the suffering around me (not just my own, or my family's) and it's pretty clear to me no one's home. I don't believe in god, but if there were a god, I would be extremely angry and appalled by his apparent indifference, his negligence. <EDIT 2 PMish CST> Took a short break to go eat. All the support and counterpoints are really helping. I just realized I haven't eaten in a very long time. In fact, I lost 20 lbs in the last month and a half. I'm back to responding, slow going because I'm so overwhelmed with emotions right now. <EDIT 3:58 PM CST> Wow I have been in a completely dark cloud. I have been holding together in some ways, but completely broken inside. I've just now come to the realization that my family is battle worn. We have been fighting for two whole years now with very little time to actually enjoy life. A very kind redditor (and really, you all have been extraordinarily kind) made a modest donation, which I am using a small portion to get the family out of the house for icecream- hopefully will boost morale around here. Will be back in a bit. I will be continuing to respond to everyone (here and PMs), even into the night. I hope you all know how grateful I am. I didn't have high hopes for today (or this post.) Thank you. <EDIT 8:34 PM CST> Been recuperating from the outing. Being able to think more clearly, I think my emotional state took the worst nose dive around 7/11. My back completely failed me, which was terrifying given the state of things. Then on 7/12, I was notified I was officially being laid off. My wife's treatment last treatment failed around a month and a half before that, requiring a new one. Darkest place I've ever been guys, thanks for pulling me out of it. I'm back now and answering things. In the meantime, thanks everyone for enabling this: [http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg](http://weirdscience.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/7CC35F6E-0EBE-42FF-902E-6776801966F6.jpg) Given the state of things, I would have never imagined winding up there today. We had a nice break, really felt like there was a bit of normalcy. I am going to summarize everything I've learned from this, so this might one day help others feeling as I do. Truth be told, I do feel more open-minded about things, this subreddit is doing exactly what it was meant to do. <EDIT 10:15ish PM CST> Holy moly, drinking philosophy through the fire hose at the moment. This whole thread has been amazingly educating. Brain a bit gooey, taking a break to watch Criminal Minds with my lady. It's our thing at the moment. Also just figured out there's this "Delta" thing I haven't been tending to. I will be going back and fixing that for all the people who contributed to changing my mind. <EDIT 1 AMish CST> Been here for a while, just responding to some neglected PMs. Might take a quick doze and see if I can actually sleep tonight, tending to a few things on this thread during periods I can't sleep. Today has been simply incredible, I am so surprised how things have gone. I am deeply touched and inspired. <EDIT 7:34 AM CST> Holy crap I actually slept the entire night! This hasn't happened in years! Back at it. <EDIT 11:51 AM CST> Taking a break, noticed my wife's thinking is starting to spiral. She hasn't been here yet to benefit from all the support and perspective everyone is offering in this thread. I'm going to share the insights I derived here, just make her day a little better. Being in a far better place now, I can more clearly see she's been in the same bad place I've been these past few months, probably for far longer than I. Don't worry though, I am a person who values his commitments and I see everything I do to its conclusion. Will be back tonight (to tend to this amazing thread and all the wonderful PMs) after the family goes to sleep. <EDIT 11:40 PM CST> Pssst. I'm back, everyone's asleep and I am back at it. Operation spirit lift was a success, my wife is feeling better- just in time for us to head to Houston to begin her new clinical trial. It's going to be a brutal week. Katie is getting a bone biopsy on Tuesday, it's really painful and scary. I have to stay behind until Tuesday night to go to a few doctor appointments to see what's up with my back. Been handing out those deltas, please let me know if I overlooked your comment, there's nearly 500 of them at this point and I'm only halfway through. <EDIT 1:00 AM CST> Heading to bed for a bit. About 3/4 way through the comments. Really want to reiterate how amazing everyone has been. I really think a lot of good will come from this- not just me and my family, but everyone. <EDIT 2:05 PM CST> Decided to brave the bounce house this morning, the kids haven't been in over a month. I was getting weird looks for having to lie down a lot, but the kids had an absolute blast. Their mom is now in Houston getting her MRI and other diagnostics. We will join her tomorrow night after all my doctors appointments for my back. To make sure my wife isn't alone through all of this, her dad took the next two days off to be with her. I really love that man, totally inspires me as a father. I'm back at home recuperating in bed while the kiddos are napping, might have to disappear suddenly. Until then, I'm back to responding. <EDIT 3:27 PM CST> Kids are awake, will come back to this tonight. <EDIT 2:17 AM CST> Yikes, totally wrecked from the day with the kiddos, just now getting back here after recuperating for a bit. <EDIT 11:37 AM> Discharged as chronic pain patient, because "we don't work well together." Really he doesn't like when I challenge him by asking questions, or to do anything really (like paperwork.) He complained that I don't go in there for procedures and just get refills on meds. I'm an intractable pain patient, surgery, epidurals, PT, spinal stim, non-opioid meds all failed and he knows this. Every single appointment, I re-iterate that I am willing to try anything new treatment-wise (and they offer none)- I think it was just him doing CYA. Anyhow, just a small window into my world (and many others in intractable pain.) Due to the opioid crisis it will take a very long time to establish a new doctor, my current one says he won't write any further scripts so this could potentially screw me over really bad. I'm going to see if an other doctor in the practice will take me on. Back to this in a bit when I figure out my next move. <EDIT 4:44 PM CST> Leaving for Houston a bit late. Waiting on house sitter. Answering PMs tonight, more of thread tomorrow.<EDIT 12:08 AM CST> In Houston, everyone's in bed. Answering PMs. <EDIT 9:00 PM CST> Going to wrap up answering comments, almost there! Afterwards, will be contributing to ProjectWATT, perhaps also to the podcast. It would be a nice way to give back. <EDIT 9:01 AM CST 8/11/18> This might be my final update to this comment, made my best effort to answer every comment in this thread. If I overlooked yours please do let me know, I will respond. I am now working on contributing to ProjectWATT as time permits. My wife had a reaction to her infusion, she's completely debilitated from it, just laying in bed crying. I am extremely stressed, but still holding (thank you everyone!) For now, I will be fully tasked taking care of everyone. We could use help, if you feel like doing so please do so solidly in your means. [paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac](https://paypal.me/homicidalbrainiac) BTC: 16d7DwFTzhfSnrbznEnP4QB3XexwFnXcK1 Katie's best friend also established a gofundme a while back that was used to raise money for paying the full insurance deductible (ours is just over $5K) that MD Anderson requires up-front before allowing treatment every year. It's been inactive for a while up until recently, but still works. [https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh](https://www.gofundme.com/z7pruh)	joshingkatie	2	2	[ { "author": "Yesofcoursenaturally", "id": "e3lub0o", "score": 1, "text": ">I would argue that an omnipotent being could make a world free of suffering, where free-will did not comprise a world where people's exercise of free will would anger him, provoking him into creating this painful existence. \n\nYou have an extremely common view of God - a creator - that I find alien. This idea that IF our world was in fact created by an intelligent being, that we'd all be happier. And while there's a lot to be said for theodicy and religion, we can put all that aside and focus on God - a broad theism - and ask a simple question.\n\nWhat if God really doesn't care all that much?\n\nFamilies die every day? You see suffering? Your life is miserable? Alright: so? Why would a creator necessarily care about any of that? Again, I'm putting aside all the arguments for classical theism and the necessary traits we'd expect of God, of religion, etc.\n\nThe fact is, all of the suffering of the universe - and a whole lot more - is completely compatible with God 'being there'. Existing. Hell, God may be getting a kick out of all of this.\n\nAnd just to tackle another objection: \"The universe is precisely what a scientist would expect to see if there were no intelligent creator behind it. It's a random ensemble of physical laws that just happened to give rise to conscious life, giving it the mere appearance of fine tuning.\"\n\nFirst, I wouldn't expect an 'appearance of fine-tuning' if the universe wasn't intelligently created. I'd expect no appearance of fine-tuning.\n\nSecond, scientists have no test for 'whether the universe indicates design'. No scientific test anyway. At most, they have a philosophy, and scientists' philosophies nowadays tend to be pretty crude and inadequate.\n\ntl;dr - God can exist and not give a rip about you, and science can't detect design's presence or lack. You can be angry at God if He does in fact exist, but if He's omnipotent, then a fat lot of good that's going to do you. May as well get angry at gravity while you're at it.", "timestamp": 1533408362 }, { "author": "zupobaloop", "id": "e3lydef", "score": 3, "text": ">This idea that IF our world was in fact created by an intelligent being, that we'd all be happier.\n\nIt is unfortunately all too common, and a side-effect of how much our view of the world, humanity, and the divine are all informed by experiences. It's not instinctual for us to be rational. Rather, we naturally find ourselves rationalizing what we already believe... based on experiences, intuitions, upbringing, etc.\n\nI only mention all that because from a theological perspective this question was pretty well answered by Leibnitz, the same dude that invented calculus. He figured that if those Christian ideals about God were true (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence), or at least that God embodied to the greatest degree power, knowledge, and goodness... well then the world would already be as good as it could be. Such a God would have created the world such that it's as good as can be.\n\nVoltaire wrote Candide / Optimism to mock the idea. Leibnitz's stand in has all manner of bad stuff happen to him but maintains his optimistic worldview. That's an appeal to emotions and experience though. It doesn't counter the argument. No amount of bad stuff can. \n\nIf God is real and as the traditional monotheists view said God, then we already live in a world which has the minimal amount of evil, suffering, chaos, etc, to still achieve whatever its purpose is. Thus, to your point, and the reason I'm responding at all... there is no rational argument that suggests \"if God were real, we'd be happier.\" The truth is \"if God were real, we're already has happy as we could be.\"", "timestamp": 1533412568 } ]	[ { "author": "pillbinge", "id": "e3lowxy", "score": 39, "text": "Have you ever played a computer game like The Sims or Cities: Skylines? Perhaps X-COM or some other strategy game where you play as an eye in the sky or, kind of a god? I'm asking because that's the closest we can become like a god. Otherwise I could compare it to being a teacher or a parent, or any role where there's responsibility for other people who are growing.\n \nHumans don't like suffering. Animals don't like suffering. But some rules of existence can't be fathomed otherwise. Even if every sentient being just ate rocks, they'd still have to compete for rocks. Then we'd eat all the rocks on a planet over time and die, or shrivel the planet so much. This example is pretty ridiculous but that's all we really have, given what we know about life. And in the end, things still need to die.\n\nSome suffering is tangibly worse than other suffering, but the human brain hasn't adapted to somehow understand the span of suffering. When someone rich can't afford a third BMW, if they've only known comfort, then their brain is going to fire off the same signals. It's not fair to everyone else and it really isn't fair to them that they have to internally struggle over something they have no control over in that sense. But the only way to be otherwise would to have everyone be omniscient in some sense. Then we'd just be a bunch of gods fighting, which is exactly what happens in mythology anyway. It's what happens to God in the Bible when he gets really upset and angry at people.", "timestamp": 1533402971 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e3loz7i", "score": 1, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1533403033 } ]	[ "e3lub0o", "e3lydef" ]	[ "e3lowxy", "e3loz7i" ]
CMV: Gavin Newsom is lying about California re-districting I’m seeing tons of posts heralding Gavin Newsom for his bravery in promising to re-district in California. I completely understand tons of people hate Trump, want him undermined, and want to see California re-districted. That being said, it’s pretty obvious to any neutral viewer that Newsom is lying about his ability to re-district, to drum up support in anticipation of a 2028 presidential run. To prove the point, I cite to the Article XXI, Section 2 of the California Constitution: (a) The Citizens Redistricting Commission shall be created no later than December 31 in 2010, and in each year ending in the number zero thereafter (g) By August 15 in 2011, and in each year ending in the number one thereafter, the commission shall approve four final maps that separately set forth the district boundary lines for the congressional, Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. Upon approval, the commission shall certify the four final maps to the Secretary of State. These provision clearly lay out when California redistricting is allowed to happen in accordance with California’s constitution. It happened fairly recently. There are no provisions in the California constitution that allow for discretionary redistricting. If you don’t believe me, feel free to review Section 2 here: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-xxi/section-2/ California would require a constitutional amendment to permit discretionary redistricting before any redistricting could be performed, in anticipation of the midterms. This is logistically impossible. Gavin Newsom knows it is logistically impossible. Gavin Newsom thinks you’re too stupid to realize it is logistically impossible, and thinks you’ll take him at face value. In reality, Newsom will try and redistrict without a constitutional amendment, which will be immediately killed by the court given the California constitution’s rules on redistricting. When the court shuts it down, Newsom will claim that he tried his best but was impeded by the court. He will use his performative attempt to garner even more support through advertising himself as a fighter, after taking a fight he can’t win, full well knowing it is because of his own state’s legislation. CMV: There is no real attempt to redistrict in California. It is entirely an optics play by Newsom. Note: Please don’t argue that Newsom wants to redistrict, I would agree with that. The issue is that it is practically impossible, Newsom knows it is practically impossible, and he is promising he’ll deliver regardless.	He's lying because you dont think the governor understands what needs to be legally changed to roll out his agenda? You're not calling him a liar, you're calling him stupid. He seems awfully on top of it. --- I think he knows it is logistically not possible, which is why I’m calling him a liar. I’m sure he has full knowledge of the mechanisms and levers he can pull. I think the notion he is going to be able to amend California’s constitution and redistrict in anticipation of 2026 to be a pipe dream. --- He's already laid this out. I feel like you are only reading headlines but not his actual proposal. If Newsom wants this done, and if Texas won't stop, then it will get done. --- I literally cited the cited the California constitution sections which currently prevent redistricting . . . You didn’t provide any explanation or any source . . . Not compelling. --- Newsom has very clearly outlined the process by which he will do this. The above poster is right, you're only reading headlines, not his actual proposal --- Great, so there’s a ballot initiative in November. Can republicans effectively filibuster any vote to implement the ballot initiative? What happens if the substance of the question on the ballot is challenged in court before it is provided to the citizens? What happens if a California Court views the initiative to be in contravention of the California constitution? What happens if a court stays the effect of the ballot while appeals are heard. You’re banking on a lot of assumptions, that you don’t realize are assumptions. Maybe it’ll work, but saying he’s got a process is just as applicable for a myriad of trump initiatives that have been killed by the courts. --- Given all these assumptions that you are making about delays, do you really still think it’s “obvious to any neutral viewer that Newsom is lying about his ability to redistribute”?	Why do you think an amendment is logistically impossible? --- Correct me if I’m wrong but you need two thirds in the house and senate, then a vote by the people: https://capitolweekly.net/constitutional-amendments-used-in-the-california-legislature/ I struggle to imagine California completing the amendment process, then successfully redistricting, in roughly a year. Republicans will prima facie challenge the validity of any question provided to the citizens following the house and senate votes. I can’t imagine the court challenge will be resolved quickly enough to allow the amendment, and subsequent redistricting. --- He’s putting it forward as a ballot measure this November, from what I recall. Why is that logistically infeasible? --- Filibustering and legal challenges. Maybe it’s possible. For reference, where I live, it takes between 6-9 months for the government to recognize a simple land title change with no issues. A fender bender typically takes 3 years to resolve. Municipal government crawls along at snail pace. If Newsom pulls it off, I would consider it one of the greatest feats of political maneuvering in memory. --- California already has a supermajority in its state legislature. It really shouldn't be a big hurdle. --- The issue is that any delays can compound quickly, and there is very little time. I would be shocked if there isn’t a legal challenge on the validity of the specific question posed to people, prior to the ballot initiative occurring. Assume the lawyers representing the party challenging the question try and sandbag proceedings and slow everything down. What happens? I don’t know, but this is one foreseeable outcome. --- Lawyers have limited ability to stop a legal ballot initiative that passes, and states have tremendous amounts of autonomy with thrir own elections. Anything thar got challenged to the Supreme Court and fell against the Dems on here would create an extremely obvious problem with Texas's attempts to redistrict. The end goal does not require Dems picking up advantageous district mapping, though if that pans out great; the point is to at least show that if Texas is playing dirty, then CA and NY will too, and if the courts stop CA but not TX, well, all the morr obvious we have a disgusting partisan hackjob of a Supremr Court that needs to be packed and reformed. It's possible we get to the point that SCOTUS plays favorites. But we should still MAKE THEM CROSS THAT LINE to show voters how incredibly bad faith liars the GOP and the SCOTUS are.	1mq4dvl	CMV: Gavin Newsom is lying about California re-districting	I’m seeing tons of posts heralding Gavin Newsom for his bravery in promising to re-district in California. I completely understand tons of people hate Trump, want him undermined, and want to see California re-districted. That being said, it’s pretty obvious to any neutral viewer that Newsom is lying about his ability to re-district, to drum up support in anticipation of a 2028 presidential run. To prove the point, I cite to the Article XXI, Section 2 of the California Constitution: (a) The Citizens Redistricting Commission shall be created no later than December 31 in 2010, and in each year ending in the number zero thereafter (g) By August 15 in 2011, and in each year ending in the number one thereafter, the commission shall approve four final maps that separately set forth the district boundary lines for the congressional, Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. Upon approval, the commission shall certify the four final maps to the Secretary of State. These provision clearly lay out when California redistricting is allowed to happen in accordance with California’s constitution. It happened fairly recently. There are no provisions in the California constitution that allow for discretionary redistricting. If you don’t believe me, feel free to review Section 2 here: https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-xxi/section-2/ California would require a constitutional amendment to permit discretionary redistricting before any redistricting could be performed, in anticipation of the midterms. This is logistically impossible. Gavin Newsom knows it is logistically impossible. Gavin Newsom thinks you’re too stupid to realize it is logistically impossible, and thinks you’ll take him at face value. In reality, Newsom will try and redistrict without a constitutional amendment, which will be immediately killed by the court given the California constitution’s rules on redistricting. When the court shuts it down, Newsom will claim that he tried his best but was impeded by the court. He will use his performative attempt to garner even more support through advertising himself as a fighter, after taking a fight he can’t win, full well knowing it is because of his own state’s legislation. CMV: There is no real attempt to redistrict in California. It is entirely an optics play by Newsom. Note: Please don’t argue that Newsom wants to redistrict, I would agree with that. The issue is that it is practically impossible, Newsom knows it is practically impossible, and he is promising he’ll deliver regardless.	pine905	7	7	[ { "author": "Proud-Ad-146", "id": "n8o6346", "score": 18, "text": "He's lying because you dont think the governor understands what needs to be legally changed to roll out his agenda? You're not calling him a liar, you're calling him stupid. \n\nHe seems awfully on top of it.", "timestamp": 1755186833 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8o855p", "score": -5, "text": "I think he knows it is logistically not possible, which is why I’m calling him a liar.\n\nI’m sure he has full knowledge of the mechanisms and levers he can pull. I think the notion he is going to be able to amend California’s constitution and redistrict in anticipation of 2026 to be a pipe dream.", "timestamp": 1755187427 }, { "author": "Bongressman", "id": "n8o9dih", "score": 10, "text": "He's already laid this out. I feel like you are only reading headlines but not his actual proposal. If Newsom wants this done, and if Texas won't stop, then it will get done.", "timestamp": 1755187791 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8odaeh", "score": -5, "text": "I literally cited the cited the California constitution sections which currently prevent redistricting . . . \n\nYou didn’t provide any explanation or any source . . . \n\nNot compelling.", "timestamp": 1755188943 }, { "author": "Bluehen55", "id": "n8oio2r", "score": 11, "text": "Newsom has very clearly outlined the process by which he will do this. The above poster is right, you're only reading headlines, not his actual proposal", "timestamp": 1755190504 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8ol7ru", "score": -4, "text": "Great, so there’s a ballot initiative in November. \n\nCan republicans effectively filibuster any vote to implement the ballot initiative? \n\nWhat happens if the substance of the question on the ballot is challenged in court before it is provided to the citizens?\n\nWhat happens if a California Court views the initiative to be in contravention of the California constitution?\n\nWhat happens if a court stays the effect of the ballot while appeals are heard.\n\nYou’re banking on a lot of assumptions, that you don’t realize are assumptions. Maybe it’ll work, but saying he’s got a process is just as applicable for a myriad of trump initiatives that have been killed by the courts.", "timestamp": 1755191219 }, { "author": "BailysmmmCreamy", "id": "n8oppv8", "score": 6, "text": "Given all these assumptions that you are making about delays, do you really still think it’s “obvious to any neutral viewer that Newsom is lying about his ability to redistribute”?", "timestamp": 1755192474 } ]	[ { "author": "Doc_ET", "id": "n8o54lf", "score": 164, "text": "Why do you think an amendment is logistically impossible?", "timestamp": 1755186559 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8o73fp", "score": 2, "text": "Correct me if I’m wrong but you need two thirds in the house and senate, then a vote by the people:\n\nhttps://capitolweekly.net/constitutional-amendments-used-in-the-california-legislature/\n\nI struggle to imagine California completing the amendment process, then successfully redistricting, in roughly a year. \n\nRepublicans will prima facie challenge the validity of any question provided to the citizens following the house and senate votes. I can’t imagine the court challenge will be resolved quickly enough to allow the amendment, and subsequent redistricting.", "timestamp": 1755187122 }, { "author": "Due_Satisfaction2167", "id": "n8obok0", "score": 54, "text": "He’s putting it forward as a ballot measure this November, from what I recall.\n\nWhy is that logistically infeasible? ", "timestamp": 1755188478 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8om6wk", "score": -11, "text": "Filibustering and legal challenges.\n\nMaybe it’s possible. For reference, where I live, it takes between 6-9 months for the government to recognize a simple land title change with no issues. A fender bender typically takes 3 years to resolve. Municipal government crawls along at snail pace.\n\nIf Newsom pulls it off, I would consider it one of the greatest feats of political maneuvering in memory.", "timestamp": 1755191491 }, { "author": "Raise_A_Thoth", "id": "n8omj8w", "score": 31, "text": "California already has a supermajority in its state legislature. It really shouldn't be a big hurdle.", "timestamp": 1755191587 }, { "author": "pine905", "id": "n8ongy2", "score": -1, "text": "The issue is that any delays can compound quickly, and there is very little time.\n\nI would be shocked if there isn’t a legal challenge on the validity of the specific question posed to people, prior to the ballot initiative occurring. \n\nAssume the lawyers representing the party challenging the question try and sandbag proceedings and slow everything down. What happens? I don’t know, but this is one foreseeable outcome.", "timestamp": 1755191846 }, { "author": "Raise_A_Thoth", "id": "n8ookhh", "score": 18, "text": "Lawyers have limited ability to stop a legal ballot initiative that passes, and states have tremendous amounts of autonomy with thrir own elections. Anything thar got challenged to the Supreme Court and fell against the Dems on here would create an extremely obvious problem with Texas's attempts to redistrict. \n\nThe end goal does not require Dems picking up advantageous district mapping, though if that pans out great; the point is to at least show that if Texas is playing dirty, then CA and NY will too, and if the courts stop CA but not TX, well, all the morr obvious we have a disgusting partisan hackjob of a Supremr Court that needs to be packed and reformed. \n\nIt's possible we get to the point that SCOTUS plays favorites. But we should still MAKE THEM CROSS THAT LINE to show voters how incredibly bad faith liars the GOP and the SCOTUS are.", "timestamp": 1755192155 } ]	[ "n8o6346", "n8o855p", "n8o9dih", "n8odaeh", "n8oio2r", "n8ol7ru", "n8oppv8" ]	[ "n8o54lf", "n8o73fp", "n8obok0", "n8om6wk", "n8omj8w", "n8ongy2", "n8ookhh" ]
CMV: Your political views are not a reason to cut ties from family, friends, etc. ‘Tis the season for everyone to say “I have a racist uncle,” “drunk divorced aunt,” etc. I am not saying that your racist uncle or hypocritical aunt have acceptable and/or PC views. Please, let’s not debate the acceptability of these views. What I want to discuss is the fact that these people, hopefully, mattered to you at some point. Whether it’s your family or a good friend, is it really worth it to cut those ties? “I can’t imagine having any relationship at all with someone who believes such reprehensible things!” Why? If you, or the other person, aren’t mature enough to have a polite, adult conversation about a topic, just don’t talk about it. “I can’t ignore it. They just hound me until I respond.” Be the bigger adult. Change the subject. Flatly tell them that you don’t want to discuss it. Yes, it’s annoying and takes effort. I just feel that in a world where so many people feel lonely, cutting off people because you have disagreements seems immature and hasty. I will clarify, I get that some people aren’t polite and you can’t avoid polarizing conditions/conversations. I’m not saying that everyone can be reasoned with. I’ve just been seeing a lot of posts across Reddit advocating for just cutting off family and friends who don’t share your beliefs, and it seems like a little bit of an overreaction. Example: Every holiday season my mom finds a way to hound me about the fact that I no longer go to church. Every. Single. Time. Rather than let it escalate to a shouting match, I change the topic early and do my best to avoid it altogether. To me, it’s worth the effort to try and maintain my relationship with my mother, even though we have conflicting views.	I have to disagree. Many times there are political differences that directly affect the family members. For instance, I'm gay. I hope to one day marry my significant other. My family has always been and many still are opposed to same sex marriage. They constantly vote for politicians who would take what few rights I have away (for instance, it's still legal to fire me for being gay where I live). We have conflicting views about basically everything, but I can't handle hearing them talk about stuff like how people shouldn't be forced to make cakes for gay weddings and stuff like that. If they choose to have views that harm me - I think it's perfectly reasonable to not talk to them. --- I’m sorry that they treat you that way. I would agree that their views are awful and wrong. Is it not possible to talk about anything else? --- I think it’s more of a psychological issue as well, like, sitting around a table of people you KNOW hate who you are? Not talking about it doesn’t help; you already know how they feel and that won’t ever be changed by just changing the subject.	"Polite, adult conversation" is only true up to a point. For the most part, it's a matter of privilige. I'm a cis, straight, white, male and able bodied person. In a topic like racism, I CAN just tune out, because no matter how racist things become, I'm probably good, as long as I'm only concentrating on myself. But that isn't true for everybody, that is a luxury that many people can't afford. If I were black for example, how would I just "agree to disagree" with someone who thinks I'm genetically inferior? How would a gay person agree with someone who thinks I'm the the highest form of degeneracy and I deserve to have my balls cut of and be beaten to death? Or if I'm transgender, but the other person simply doesn't aknowledge that fact, treats me as the other gender, uses my dead name etc? And why would I keep in touch with said person? How good of a friend can somebody be that thinks I'm an inferior person? That I deserve to die? That doesn't accept who I am? How is it somehow "being the adult", to accept such things just because? Because of what exactly? Your problem with your mother is a problem that can be ignored, yes, but it's ultimately inconsequential, isn't it? Your mother doesn't hate your guts, your mother doesn't wish you dead etc. You're asuming that every "disagreement" is as laughable and inconsequential in nature as yours, which simply is not the case. --- For the example of the black individual, how did they become friends or family with someone who is that disgusted by their existence? That’d be a poor choice of a friend, a spouse (assuming they married into a racist family), or they were adopted into a racist family, which is quite sad. Regardless, I get your point. I wonder how many people experience this at a family holiday function. Regarding the scenario of the gay individual, woah. I’ve heard of family saying “That’s wrong!” or “You make me sick!” How many are saying “I’m gonna cut your balls off and beat you sissy!”? I’d guess that that’s not very many, and your edge case is an extreme exaggeration, but the point is made. As I said in my post, some people can’t be reasoned with. I feel like you purposely took the most extreme examples, rather than looking at more common ones. Common arguments? “Should we build the wall?” Not “Should we cut off people’s testicles?” --- I mean, of course these examples are extreme. But that's the point of them. To say that these are extreme is irelevant to your topic at hand. Of course there are things that you can agree to disagree with, but these things prerequisit that you can actually afford not to care about these things. And it's not all that extreme. Having a kid that falls in love with a black person is not an uncommon scenario and parents reacting to it in a very negative way also isn't especially uncommon. Also, you're CMV isn't "there are many reasons that aren't strong enough to warant cutting ties", but that political reasons aren't. If some part of my family believes that there are races and some of them are inferior (often masked via "It's just their culture"), why the fuck would I not cut ties? Same for all of the things mentioned above. There are enough strict christians that wish gays death and there are enough people that don't accept trans people. Why do I owe them my friendship/company when they disagree vehemently with my world views? And I'd totally cut ties with a relative that would support the wall. Fuck inhumane treatment just because you think other people aren't deserving of better lives. You just argue that these aren't things that are strong enough for YOU to cut ties. But why wouldn't it be for other people? What would be a reason to break ties?	a8jvtg	CMV: Your political views are not a reason to cut ties from family, friends, etc.	‘Tis the season for everyone to say “I have a racist uncle,” “drunk divorced aunt,” etc. I am not saying that your racist uncle or hypocritical aunt have acceptable and/or PC views. Please, let’s not debate the acceptability of these views. What I want to discuss is the fact that these people, hopefully, mattered to you at some point. Whether it’s your family or a good friend, is it really worth it to cut those ties? “I can’t imagine having any relationship at all with someone who believes such reprehensible things!” Why? If you, or the other person, aren’t mature enough to have a polite, adult conversation about a topic, just don’t talk about it. “I can’t ignore it. They just hound me until I respond.” Be the bigger adult. Change the subject. Flatly tell them that you don’t want to discuss it. Yes, it’s annoying and takes effort. I just feel that in a world where so many people feel lonely, cutting off people because you have disagreements seems immature and hasty. I will clarify, I get that some people aren’t polite and you can’t avoid polarizing conditions/conversations. I’m not saying that everyone can be reasoned with. I’ve just been seeing a lot of posts across Reddit advocating for just cutting off family and friends who don’t share your beliefs, and it seems like a little bit of an overreaction. Example: Every holiday season my mom finds a way to hound me about the fact that I no longer go to church. Every. Single. Time. Rather than let it escalate to a shouting match, I change the topic early and do my best to avoid it altogether. To me, it’s worth the effort to try and maintain my relationship with my mother, even though we have conflicting views.	tnel77	3	3	[ { "author": "PM_ME__About_YourDay", "id": "ecbb5vu", "score": 19, "text": "I have to disagree. Many times there are political differences that directly affect the family members. For instance, I'm gay. I hope to one day marry my significant other. My family has always been and many still are opposed to same sex marriage. They constantly vote for politicians who would take what few rights I have away (for instance, it's still legal to fire me for being gay where I live). We have conflicting views about basically everything, but I can't handle hearing them talk about stuff like how people shouldn't be forced to make cakes for gay weddings and stuff like that. If they choose to have views that harm me - I think it's perfectly reasonable to not talk to them.", "timestamp": 1545477340 }, { "author": "tnel77", "id": "ecblx6v", "score": 0, "text": "I’m sorry that they treat you that way. I would agree that their views are awful and wrong. Is it not possible to talk about anything else?", "timestamp": 1545490011 }, { "author": "Ghostface215", "id": "ecbr6n3", "score": 14, "text": "I think it’s more of a psychological issue as well, like, sitting around a table of people you KNOW hate who you are? Not talking about it doesn’t help; you already know how they feel and that won’t ever be changed by just changing the subject.", "timestamp": 1545494975 } ]	[ { "author": "PandaDerZwote", "id": "ecbb0l5", "score": 26, "text": "\"Polite, adult conversation\" is only true up to a point. \nFor the most part, it's a matter of privilige. I'm a cis, straight, white, male and able bodied person. In a topic like racism, I CAN just tune out, because no matter how racist things become, I'm probably good, as long as I'm only concentrating on myself. \n\nBut that isn't true for everybody, that is a luxury that many people can't afford. If I were black for example, how would I just \"agree to disagree\" with someone who thinks I'm genetically inferior? How would a gay person agree with someone who thinks I'm the the highest form of degeneracy and I deserve to have my balls cut of and be beaten to death? Or if I'm transgender, but the other person simply doesn't aknowledge that fact, treats me as the other gender, uses my dead name etc? \n\nAnd why would I keep in touch with said person? How good of a friend can somebody be that thinks I'm an inferior person? That I deserve to die? That doesn't accept who I am? \nHow is it somehow \"being the adult\", to accept such things just because? Because of what exactly? \n\nYour problem with your mother is a problem that can be ignored, yes, but it's ultimately inconsequential, isn't it? Your mother doesn't hate your guts, your mother doesn't wish you dead etc. \nYou're asuming that every \"disagreement\" is as laughable and inconsequential in nature as yours, which simply is not the case.", "timestamp": 1545477138 }, { "author": "tnel77", "id": "ecbl6en", "score": 0, "text": "For the example of the black individual, how did they become friends or family with someone who is that disgusted by their existence? That’d be a poor choice of a friend, a spouse (assuming they married into a racist family), or they were adopted into a racist family, which is quite sad. Regardless, I get your point. I wonder how many people experience this at a family holiday function.\n\nRegarding the scenario of the gay individual, woah. I’ve heard of family saying “That’s wrong!” or “You make me sick!” How many are saying “I’m gonna cut your balls off and beat you sissy!”? I’d guess that that’s not very many, and your edge case is an extreme exaggeration, but the point is made.\n\nAs I said in my post, some people can’t be reasoned with. I feel like you purposely took the most extreme examples, rather than looking at more common ones. Common arguments? “Should we build the wall?” Not “Should we cut off people’s testicles?”\n", "timestamp": 1545489296 }, { "author": "PandaDerZwote", "id": "ecbqt9a", "score": 9, "text": "I mean, of course these examples are extreme. \nBut that's the point of them. \n\nTo say that these are extreme is irelevant to your topic at hand. Of course there are things that you can agree to disagree with, but these things prerequisit that you can actually afford not to care about these things. \n\nAnd it's not all that extreme. Having a kid that falls in love with a black person is not an uncommon scenario and parents reacting to it in a very negative way also isn't especially uncommon. \n\nAlso, you're CMV isn't \"there are many reasons that aren't strong enough to warant cutting ties\", but that political reasons aren't. \nIf some part of my family believes that there are races and some of them are inferior (often masked via \"It's just their culture\"), why the fuck would I not cut ties? \nSame for all of the things mentioned above. There are enough strict christians that wish gays death and there are enough people that don't accept trans people. \nWhy do I owe them my friendship/company when they disagree vehemently with my world views? \n\nAnd I'd totally cut ties with a relative that would support the wall. Fuck inhumane treatment just because you think other people aren't deserving of better lives. \nYou just argue that these aren't things that are strong enough for YOU to cut ties. But why wouldn't it be for other people? \n\nWhat would be a reason to break ties?", "timestamp": 1545494653 } ]	[ "ecbb5vu", "ecblx6v", "ecbr6n3" ]	[ "ecbb0l5", "ecbl6en", "ecbqt9a" ]
CMV: The argument that Randy Marsh uses against marijuana in South Park is actually more applicable to video games, and serves to illustrate why they are dangerous and damaging. In S6E16 of South Park, Randy gives Stan the following speech about why he thinks marijuana is bad: >Stan: I've been told a lot of things about pot, but I've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So I don't know what to believe! >Randy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything. While this argument is meant to be about marijuana, I think it actually applies more specifically to video games. People who smoke weed will often still engage in creative activity and even go outdoors, get exercise, etc. But people who play a lot of video games are engaged in an activity that occupies them. While playing video games, you can only passively consume media like podcasts & music. Therefore I think this argument is more applicable to video games, and it serves to illustrate how damaging they are. I feel like there are few counter-arguments you can make in this regard: one is that you can enjoy them responsibly, or maybe a bit more of a stretch would be to say that you can become skilled enough at video games to the point where you can become competitive. But this is an extremely small fraction of those who play video games frequently, and in order to become competitive, you will have to play video games even more than a person that most would consider to be a video game addict. It would literally consume your life, and even then, only for a chance at making a profit from it. Not the best bet to make in life. I guess the most convincing rebuttal I can think of is that video game fandom can lead to someone becoming a video game developer, or a video game journalist. But again, these are very competitive fields in which a vast majority of people will not find success, and a majority of problem gamers will not even attempt in the first place. There are many amateur musicians who may not ever become financially independent from music, but they garner many other benefits: artistic expression, skill development, social networking, personal enrichment. Being a musician is a respectable occupation or at least a respectable hobby. Video games are not respectable, and in fact many women now specifically say they don't want to date gamers on their dating profiles, and frankly I don't blame them for saying so. So while Randy's speech may have been about marijuana, I feel like it probably more accurately applies to video games. The main problem is that it makes you okay with being bored to an unhealthy degree. So what do you think, am I being too harsh? Did I miss something beneficial about video games? Change my view.	Video games can also improve hand-eye coordination, reaction times. They can help you develop problem-solving skills. They can help you learn to work with a team in order to achieve a goal. They can improve your health by being an outlet for stress. There are many real benefits to playing video games. --- I came to post essentially this point. Video games can develop skills translatable to other, more directly productive endeavors. From my own experience: * I learned how to set up and manage customized, dedicated VoIP servers because of gaming. * Strategizing on a price fixing scheme in an MMO gave me an intuitive understanding of economics that I wouldn't otherwise have. * I have excellent fine motor skills that I developed in part due to video games, which I now employ in assembling electronics and modifying micromanufacturing systems. * Gaming made me a faster typist. * Gaming improved my ability to intuitively navigate user interfaces, including in CAD and simulation software. * Gaming got me interested in computer hardware, networks and progamming, which ultimately led to my getting a bachelor's in computer engineering. Edit: Minesweeper and solitaire were originally bundled with the Windows OS to help users develop basic computer skills (mouse accuracy, click and drag, UI familiarity, etc). I met people in college who would barely know how to use a computer at all if it weren't for some amount of gaming experience.	I don't see why this wouldn't apply to tons of other things. A similar case could he made for listening to music, reading books, watching movies, and tons of other stuff. But, ultimately having these downtime activities where you're not doing something is important. We shouldn't be doing stuff 24/7. We should be allowed to take breaks and just decompress. As long as you're not doing it to an unhealthy degree they can actually be healthy for you. --- Maybe I wasn't clear in the OP but a big problem with video games is that they are not capable of being passive entertainment. They occupy you. I mean you can listen to podcasts and music while playing video games but even then your attention is going to be split. And you can do other things while listening to music or podcasts, like getting exercise. To my knowledge you can't play games while doing other "active" activities. I think it's safe to say it's "better" to do something like exercising while listening to a podcast or music vs. playing a video game and doing those. Reading books can really improve your knowledge and intellect. Watching movies, yeah. You have a point. But even then they will benefit you more than video games, since they are often based on real subjects or will give you an interesting perspective on reality. Video games tend to be pure escapism.	9fea2w	CMV: The argument that Randy Marsh uses against marijuana in South Park is actually more applicable to video games, and serves to illustrate why they are dangerous and damaging.	In S6E16 of South Park, Randy gives Stan the following speech about why he thinks marijuana is bad: >Stan: I've been told a lot of things about pot, but I've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So I don't know what to believe! >Randy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything. While this argument is meant to be about marijuana, I think it actually applies more specifically to video games. People who smoke weed will often still engage in creative activity and even go outdoors, get exercise, etc. But people who play a lot of video games are engaged in an activity that occupies them. While playing video games, you can only passively consume media like podcasts & music. Therefore I think this argument is more applicable to video games, and it serves to illustrate how damaging they are. I feel like there are few counter-arguments you can make in this regard: one is that you can enjoy them responsibly, or maybe a bit more of a stretch would be to say that you can become skilled enough at video games to the point where you can become competitive. But this is an extremely small fraction of those who play video games frequently, and in order to become competitive, you will have to play video games even more than a person that most would consider to be a video game addict. It would literally consume your life, and even then, only for a chance at making a profit from it. Not the best bet to make in life. I guess the most convincing rebuttal I can think of is that video game fandom can lead to someone becoming a video game developer, or a video game journalist. But again, these are very competitive fields in which a vast majority of people will not find success, and a majority of problem gamers will not even attempt in the first place. There are many amateur musicians who may not ever become financially independent from music, but they garner many other benefits: artistic expression, skill development, social networking, personal enrichment. Being a musician is a respectable occupation or at least a respectable hobby. Video games are not respectable, and in fact many women now specifically say they don't want to date gamers on their dating profiles, and frankly I don't blame them for saying so. So while Randy's speech may have been about marijuana, I feel like it probably more accurately applies to video games. The main problem is that it makes you okay with being bored to an unhealthy degree. So what do you think, am I being too harsh? Did I miss something beneficial about video games? Change my view.	MrEctomy	2	2	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e5vukzt", "score": 15, "text": "Video games can also improve hand-eye coordination, reaction times. They can help you develop problem-solving skills. They can help you learn to work with a team in order to achieve a goal. They can improve your health by being an outlet for stress. There are many real benefits to playing video games. ", "timestamp": 1536807505 }, { "author": "Ce_n-est_pas_un_nom", "id": "e5vvqev", "score": 6, "text": "I came to post essentially this point. Video games can develop skills translatable to other, more directly productive endeavors.\n\nFrom my own experience:\n* I learned how to set up and manage customized, dedicated VoIP servers because of gaming. \n* Strategizing on a price fixing scheme in an MMO gave me an intuitive understanding of economics that I wouldn't otherwise have.\n* I have excellent fine motor skills that I developed in part due to video games, which I now employ in assembling electronics and modifying micromanufacturing systems.\n* Gaming made me a faster typist.\n* Gaming improved my ability to intuitively navigate user interfaces, including in CAD and simulation software.\n* Gaming got me interested in computer hardware, networks and progamming, which ultimately led to my getting a bachelor's in computer engineering.\n\nEdit:\n\nMinesweeper and solitaire were originally bundled with the Windows OS to help users develop basic computer skills (mouse accuracy, click and drag, UI familiarity, etc). I met people in college who would barely know how to use a computer at all if it weren't for some amount of gaming experience.", "timestamp": 1536808719 } ]	[ { "author": "Feathring", "id": "e5vuiih", "score": 2, "text": "I don't see why this wouldn't apply to tons of other things. A similar case could he made for listening to music, reading books, watching movies, and tons of other stuff.\n\nBut, ultimately having these downtime activities where you're not doing something is important. We shouldn't be doing stuff 24/7. We should be allowed to take breaks and just decompress. As long as you're not doing it to an unhealthy degree they can actually be healthy for you.", "timestamp": 1536807436 }, { "author": "MrEctomy", "id": "e5vvxa8", "score": 1, "text": "Maybe I wasn't clear in the OP but a big problem with video games is that they are not capable of being passive entertainment. They occupy you. I mean you can listen to podcasts and music while playing video games but even then your attention is going to be split. And you can do other things while listening to music or podcasts, like getting exercise. To my knowledge you can't play games while doing other \"active\" activities. I think it's safe to say it's \"better\" to do something like exercising while listening to a podcast or music vs. playing a video game and doing those.\n\nReading books can really improve your knowledge and intellect. Watching movies, yeah. You have a point. But even then they will benefit you more than video games, since they are often based on real subjects or will give you an interesting perspective on reality. Video games tend to be pure escapism.", "timestamp": 1536808926 } ]	[ "e5vukzt", "e5vvqev" ]	[ "e5vuiih", "e5vvxa8" ]
CMV: The Wall is a perfectly legit example of opera first, let's start with the definition of opera: a drama set to music and made up of vocal pieces with orchestral accompaniment and orchestral overtures and interludes (Merriam-Webster). The Wall is certainly a drama, it's the story of how a performer (Pink) came to build an emotional wall (hence the name The Wall) around himself. It is made up of some excellent vocal pieces with "orchestral accompaniment". This is the only weak point in y argument. An orchestra is made mostly of string instruments. There are definitely string instruments with a lead and bass guitar, but there is also keyboard, drum, and a whole bunch of added in samples. There are overtures and interludes all the way through the album in between more well known pieces in the album. Therefore, to seem extra snobbish, when someone asks you what you're listening to when you listen to The Wall (as one does daily), you should answer with opera.	The wall is a rock opera: >A rock opera is a collection of rock music songs with lyrics that relate to a common story. Rock operas are typically released as concept albums and are not scripted for acting, which distinguishes them from operas, although several have been adapted as rock musicals. Technically speaking, if we decide to ignore the obvious and apply the definition of opera in a way that strains credulity, The wall could be used as an example of an opera. But I think it's a pretty poor example as it does not match what people generally mean when they say "opera". --- That’s my point. Opera shouldn’t be defined as what most people think of when they hear “opera”. Something like The Wall is just as much opera as The Marriage of Figaro. --- So, just change the definition until it fits? Not sure that's how CMV is supposed to work. Agreeing on terms is sort of requirement.	"Orchestra" is more than just "a group of instruments, some of which are strings". It refers to a more specific ensemble, which does not really play a role in The Wall's instrumentation. Also, an Opera is a stage show, not a film. And while there is a The Wall stage show, it does not have actors acting out the narrative. It is a concert with sets, but not a play with music. By your logic, just about any musical is a Opera. Why do you think those are usually referred to as separate things? --- A musical is broken up with dialogue. The Wall (like an opera) has only interludes and overtures. --- Some musicals are "sung through" (i.e. all dialogue is actually lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-through). The Wall has some dialog that isn't lyrics even if it's not much. Ex: >"Oh my God! What a fabulous room! Are all these your guitars? This place is bigger than our apartment! Uh, can I get a drink of water? You want some, huh? Oh wow, look at this tub, do you wanna take a bath? What are you watching? Hello? Are you feeling okay?" --- What about the other two points I made? What do you think of them?	mvnuit	CMV: The Wall is a perfectly legit example of opera	first, let's start with the definition of opera: a drama set to music and made up of vocal pieces with orchestral accompaniment and orchestral overtures and interludes (Merriam-Webster). The Wall is certainly a drama, it's the story of how a performer (Pink) came to build an emotional wall (hence the name The Wall) around himself. It is made up of some excellent vocal pieces with "orchestral accompaniment". This is the only weak point in y argument. An orchestra is made mostly of string instruments. There are definitely string instruments with a lead and bass guitar, but there is also keyboard, drum, and a whole bunch of added in samples. There are overtures and interludes all the way through the album in between more well known pieces in the album. Therefore, to seem extra snobbish, when someone asks you what you're listening to when you listen to The Wall (as one does daily), you should answer with opera.	SaltySpursSupporter	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvd3mon", "score": 4, "text": "The wall is a rock opera:\n\n>A rock opera is a collection of rock music songs with lyrics that relate to a common story. Rock operas are typically released as concept albums and are not scripted for acting, which distinguishes them from operas, although several have been adapted as rock musicals.\n\nTechnically speaking, if we decide to ignore the obvious and apply the definition of opera in a way that strains credulity, The wall could be used as an example of an opera. But I think it's a pretty poor example as it does not match what people generally mean when they say \"opera\".", "timestamp": 1619035600 }, { "author": "SaltySpursSupporter", "id": "gvd3vig", "score": 0, "text": "That’s my point. Opera shouldn’t be defined as what most people think of when they hear “opera”. Something like The Wall is just as much opera as The Marriage of Figaro.", "timestamp": 1619035706 }, { "author": "BlindPelican", "id": "gvd4civ", "score": 3, "text": "So, just change the definition until it fits? \n\nNot sure that's how CMV is supposed to work. Agreeing on terms is sort of requirement.", "timestamp": 1619035910 } ]	[ { "author": "dudemanwhoa", "id": "gvd22uo", "score": 8, "text": "\"Orchestra\" is more than just \"a group of instruments, some of which are strings\". It refers to a more specific ensemble, which does not really play a role in The Wall's instrumentation. \n\nAlso, an Opera is a stage show, not a film. And while there is a The Wall stage show, it does not have actors acting out the narrative. It is a concert with sets, but not a play with music. \n\nBy your logic, just about any musical is a Opera. Why do you think those are usually referred to as separate things?", "timestamp": 1619034944 }, { "author": "SaltySpursSupporter", "id": "gvd3kg0", "score": 0, "text": "A musical is broken up with dialogue. The Wall (like an opera) has only interludes and overtures.", "timestamp": 1619035574 }, { "author": "dudemanwhoa", "id": "gvd44af", "score": 6, "text": "Some musicals are \"sung through\" (i.e. all dialogue is actually lyrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-through). The Wall has some dialog that isn't lyrics even if it's not much. Ex:\n\n>\"Oh my God! What a fabulous room! Are all these your guitars? This place is bigger than our apartment! Uh, can I get a drink of water? You want some, huh? Oh wow, look at this tub, do you wanna take a bath? What are you watching? Hello? Are you feeling okay?\"\n\n---\n\nWhat about the other two points I made? What do you think of them?", "timestamp": 1619035812 } ]	[ "gvd3mon", "gvd3vig", "gvd4civ" ]	[ "gvd22uo", "gvd3kg0", "gvd44af" ]
CMV: America is woefully unprepared for a major disaster Examples include an invasion by a foreign country, civil war, nuclear attack, running out of fossil fuels, EMP blast, severe worldwide drought, asteroid strike or a massive volcanic eruption like the entirety of Yellowstone national park erupting. Surviving the event itself will be easier than surviving the days, weeks, months and years afterward. If all things electric shutdown because of an EMP blast including semi trucks, there goes 99% of the food supply for major cities. If the EMP goes off in the winter, many northern cities will see millions of people freeze to death in the cold. So, now everyone rushes to the supermarket to raid for food and those are scenes of major bloodbath and murders. Even if you have food and water storage, you may be dozens of miles away from land that can produce food through fishing, hunting or farming in the long term and that journey into the countryside may be more risky than what it is worth At this point, horse drawn carriages will become a necessity and we don't have too much of those right now. Meanwhile, the Amish are not as severely effected by this disaster as they are MUCH more self reliant than the average American. It might be a great idea for the federal government to consult with the Amish on an American disaster plan. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we saw people fist fighting over toilet paper... imagine when people start fighting over food...	Hey, okay, I agree with a lot of what you said but I think you underestimate the power of one trillion dollars of defense spending. I'm not one of those guys, but we can probably take anyone in combat at any time. The rest of anything else, though. Yeah-we screwed. --- Ok, you got me there with the military invasion deal, but what about with civil war? !delta --- What about it? It's extremely unlikely to the point of it being near impossible.	The Amish are like 300k people mostly in or around 3 states. A nuclear attack could wipe most of them out. I'm not sure in what sense they are "prepared" unless being relatively oblivious to the outside world is "prepared". Granted, probably nobody would bother nuking the Amish. However, the Amish also would be complete pushovers that likely wouldn't exist without being situated in a powerful first world country protecting them. America is certainly among the least well ordered of first world countries and has severe political problems. However, calling it woefully unprepared relative to the Amish is kind of absurd. Major disasters are also often something you can't be prepared for aside from having active institutions and technologies anticipating them. The Amish basically don't have this. America does, even if they're janky and corrupt such as they are. --- You can definitely prepare for major disasters by stockpiling seeds, incetevizing farmers to keep horses, cows and horse drawn carriages in place so if there is an EMP blast and all of our cars break then everything doesn't just grind to a halt. Stuff like that --- EMP blasts aren't exactly high on the list of likely major disasters. Focusing on a few technology related disasters that the Amish are relatively less affected by due to being luddites doesn't show how America is unprepared whether in relative terms or not.	mvnetg	CMV: America is woefully unprepared for a major disaster	Examples include an invasion by a foreign country, civil war, nuclear attack, running out of fossil fuels, EMP blast, severe worldwide drought, asteroid strike or a massive volcanic eruption like the entirety of Yellowstone national park erupting. Surviving the event itself will be easier than surviving the days, weeks, months and years afterward. If all things electric shutdown because of an EMP blast including semi trucks, there goes 99% of the food supply for major cities. If the EMP goes off in the winter, many northern cities will see millions of people freeze to death in the cold. So, now everyone rushes to the supermarket to raid for food and those are scenes of major bloodbath and murders. Even if you have food and water storage, you may be dozens of miles away from land that can produce food through fishing, hunting or farming in the long term and that journey into the countryside may be more risky than what it is worth At this point, horse drawn carriages will become a necessity and we don't have too much of those right now. Meanwhile, the Amish are not as severely effected by this disaster as they are MUCH more self reliant than the average American. It might be a great idea for the federal government to consult with the Amish on an American disaster plan. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we saw people fist fighting over toilet paper... imagine when people start fighting over food...	overhardeggs	3	3	[ { "author": "YellowHistorical8229", "id": "gvczw1q", "score": 3, "text": "Hey, okay, I agree with a lot of what you said but I think you underestimate the power of one trillion dollars of defense spending. I'm not one of those guys, but we can probably take anyone in combat at any time. The rest of anything else, though. Yeah-we screwed.", "timestamp": 1619034004 }, { "author": "overhardeggs", "id": "gvd09fu", "score": 1, "text": "Ok, you got me there with the military invasion deal, but what about with civil war? !delta", "timestamp": 1619034165 }, { "author": "Scienter17", "id": "gvd1etu", "score": 3, "text": "What about it? It's extremely unlikely to the point of it being near impossible.", "timestamp": 1619034660 } ]	[ { "author": "Havenkeld", "id": "gvczifp", "score": 0, "text": "The Amish are like 300k people mostly in or around 3 states.\n\nA nuclear attack could wipe most of them out. I'm not sure in what sense they are \"prepared\" unless being relatively oblivious to the outside world is \"prepared\". \n\nGranted, probably nobody would bother nuking the Amish. However, the Amish also would be complete pushovers that likely wouldn't exist without being situated in a powerful first world country protecting them. \n\nAmerica is certainly among the least well ordered of first world countries and has severe political problems. However, calling it woefully unprepared relative to the Amish is kind of absurd. \n\nMajor disasters are also often something you can't be prepared for aside from having active institutions and technologies anticipating them. The Amish basically don't have this. America does, even if they're janky and corrupt such as they are.", "timestamp": 1619033842 }, { "author": "overhardeggs", "id": "gvczrza", "score": 1, "text": "You can definitely prepare for major disasters by stockpiling seeds, incetevizing farmers to keep horses, cows and horse drawn carriages in place so if there is an EMP blast and all of our cars break then everything doesn't just grind to a halt. Stuff like that", "timestamp": 1619033955 }, { "author": "Havenkeld", "id": "gvd0b27", "score": 2, "text": "EMP blasts aren't exactly high on the list of likely major disasters. Focusing on a few technology related disasters that the Amish are relatively less affected by due to being luddites doesn't show how America is unprepared whether in relative terms or not.", "timestamp": 1619034184 } ]	[ "gvczw1q", "gvd09fu", "gvd1etu" ]	[ "gvczifp", "gvczrza", "gvd0b27" ]
CMV: Lolicon is a form of pedophilia and shouldn’t be treated like it’s normal. I’m not saying we should persecute those who view it or enjoy it - but acting as if it’s a normal thing that should be encouraged in otherwise healthy individuals isn’t something I agree with. I could make this longer but my gist is this: It doesn’t matter if the lore says it’s 1,000 years old. It doesn’t matter if they’re based on a real person whom is of legal age. Liking someone sexually based on their childlike appearance is, at a minimum, pedophilia adjacent. For reference, I’m a mid 20s woman that is often mistaken for 15 or younger. People that age often hit on me and so do men much older - my actual age doesn’t take away from the fact that these people are interested because of how I look as well as the young characteristics I possess. Hell, I’ve even had boyfriends whom were heavily into Lolicon and admitted it to be a facet of why they liked me. I don’t think they’re bad people - I’m glad they choose people that can satisfy their desires while remaining perfectly legal. It does squeak me out anyway, though. Edit: a few things I want to clarify before I start sending out more replies: 1. Pedophilia is not having sex or molesting or raping kids. Pedophilia is STRICTLY the attraction to those whom are prepubescent. It does not denote any actions. 2. As such, I do not believe anyone who simply is a pedophilia should be persecuted at all.	[removed] --- This is something interesting. Why do you think a lot of lolicons don’t actually like kids? Do you know this isn’t just posturing? I’m just interested in knowing more - what DOES interest you or other lolicons in the genre? So I can better understand the differences. --- [removed] --- Interesting. I’m not sure if I should award a delta here or not. I will say that this has given m some food for thought, but I still REALLY don’t get it yet fully. --- I like some loli characters in anime like I do a lot of characters in anime. I don't like children in real life, never had any sort of perverse thoughts of children in that way ever. I won't argue that it's normal, but it's not pedophilic. Like the previous person said, yes there are some pedophiles that use lolis as an outlet for their actual pedophilic perversion. They're even some loli doujins that have been traced over from child porn. This definitely is an issue. However, I think what most normal people don't get is that loli is just an umbrella term for a bunch of archetypes that are seen and ONLY exist in anime. Their physical traits are hypersexualized versions of traits found in children yes, but you wouldn't find them on any child in real life. They're caricatures. Think the furry community and the sexual deviancy aspect of it. Those who like furry porn aren't into actual bestiality, but the concept of furries. --- >Think the furry community and the sexual deviancy aspect of it. Those who like furry porn aren't into actual bestiality, but the concept of furries. I think this is a very good comparison that makes it easier to understand why a loli fetish would not necessarily carry over to real human girls when it comes to superficial qualities. But I think when you look at the underlying elements of attraction or "theme" of each community you can see some very stark differences. Namely: 1. Most furries want to be the animals themselves. People who enjoy loli do not also imagine themselves as loli avatars most often. This means that furry relationships are established on grounds of egalitarianism within the fantasy-- i.e. both members are elements of fantasy, while in lolicon only one member is an element of fantasy. This naturally leads to a power imbalance between both sides of the fantasy in loli that is not present in furry fantasies. 2. Furries are by definition thinking, feeling, expressive animals, thereby removing the main problem with actual beastiality which is that animals cannot consent. Furries are explicitly humanized animals, while lolis are the opposite-- dehumanized young girls. These differences strike me as important. A person engaging in sexual relations with an animal is likely to be excluded from the community because the act goes against fundamental elements of what makes the furry a furry-- the person is not an animal and the animal cannot consent. However for lolicon, a person engaging in sexual relations with a child may not be excluded from the community because while it does not fall within the aesthetic preferences for the community, it may potentially still fall within the thematic preferences of the community. I.e. domination and objectification of a young, innocent, childlike figure by an older adult figure. There are likely many within the loli community that are repulsed by the idea of having sex with an actual child because for them it is just a fantasy, same with how many people in BDSM communities are repulsed by the idea of actual rape. The problem is that just as many rapists find validation in BDSM, many potential child abusers may find validation in the loli community through these thematic elements being regularly admired and praised, and their potential victims will not have the means to protect themselves.	where exactly is it treated like its normal? --- sîI guess it depends on where you frequent - it’s not something you’d say in public (although I can’t think of any fetishes/sexual things you would say in public), but largely, I’ve seen online where people discuss these things that Lolicon is distinct from pedophilia and they don’t share any common attributes or qualities. It’s just another fetish like feet or something. --- I agree, if they are attracted to images of children its pedophilia. I just disagree its considered normal, like you mention its not something they'd say in public because society would look down on them, as it should. --- I don’t think anyone would say anything about their fetishes, even the ones that are super common, so it’s hard for me to say. Additionally, I feel we, as an American society, are okay with a type of pedophilia to an extent - 40 year old men being attracted to 15-16 year olds and willing to sexualize/be sexual with them if it were legal is problematic but not really what I’m talking about here. Just couldn’t help but bring that up. --- Plenty of fetishes are perfectly accepted in society even if they aren't discussed at the dinner table. Also, a 40 year old having sex with a 15 to 16 year old isn't pedophilia. It may be rape depending on the state, but it is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is specifically related to attraction towards prepubescent children. The issue with post-pubescent teens is less about attraction and more about consent. --- I did say a type of pedophilia - which would be classified as Hebephilia which is classified as a subset.	e2im6u	CMV: Lolicon is a form of pedophilia and shouldn’t be treated like it’s normal.	I’m not saying we should persecute those who view it or enjoy it - but acting as if it’s a normal thing that should be encouraged in otherwise healthy individuals isn’t something I agree with. I could make this longer but my gist is this: It doesn’t matter if the lore says it’s 1,000 years old. It doesn’t matter if they’re based on a real person whom is of legal age. Liking someone sexually based on their childlike appearance is, at a minimum, pedophilia adjacent. For reference, I’m a mid 20s woman that is often mistaken for 15 or younger. People that age often hit on me and so do men much older - my actual age doesn’t take away from the fact that these people are interested because of how I look as well as the young characteristics I possess. Hell, I’ve even had boyfriends whom were heavily into Lolicon and admitted it to be a facet of why they liked me. I don’t think they’re bad people - I’m glad they choose people that can satisfy their desires while remaining perfectly legal. It does squeak me out anyway, though. Edit: a few things I want to clarify before I start sending out more replies: 1. Pedophilia is not having sex or molesting or raping kids. Pedophilia is STRICTLY the attraction to those whom are prepubescent. It does not denote any actions. 2. As such, I do not believe anyone who simply is a pedophilia should be persecuted at all.	ThisAngryGirl	6	6	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f8wivxz", "score": 298, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1574891817 }, { "author": "ThisAngryGirl", "id": "f8wj3h8", "score": 168, "text": "This is something interesting. Why do you think a lot of lolicons don’t actually like kids? Do you know this isn’t just posturing?\n\nI’m just interested in knowing more - what DOES interest you or other lolicons in the genre?\n\nSo I can better understand the differences.", "timestamp": 1574891953 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "f8wl7uv", "score": 110, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1574893383 }, { "author": "ThisAngryGirl", "id": "f8wln0p", "score": 87, "text": "Interesting. I’m not sure if I should award a delta here or not. I will say that this has given m some food for thought, but I still REALLY don’t get it yet fully.", "timestamp": 1574893672 }, { "author": "Drakere", "id": "f8wpqwr", "score": 58, "text": "I like some loli characters in anime like I do a lot of characters in anime. I don't like children in real life, never had any sort of perverse thoughts of children in that way ever. I won't argue that it's normal, but it's not pedophilic.\n\nLike the previous person said, yes there are some pedophiles that use lolis as an outlet for their actual pedophilic perversion. They're even some loli doujins that have been traced over from child porn. This definitely is an issue. However, I think what most normal people don't get is that loli is just an umbrella term for a bunch of archetypes that are seen and ONLY exist in anime. Their physical traits are hypersexualized versions of traits found in children yes, but you wouldn't find them on any child in real life. They're caricatures. \n\nThink the furry community and the sexual deviancy aspect of it. Those who like furry porn aren't into actual bestiality, but the concept of furries.", "timestamp": 1574896631 }, { "author": "sflage2k19", "id": "f8wx4br", "score": 76, "text": ">Think the furry community and the sexual deviancy aspect of it. Those who like furry porn aren't into actual bestiality, but the concept of furries.\n\nI think this is a very good comparison that makes it easier to understand why a loli fetish would not necessarily carry over to real human girls when it comes to superficial qualities. But I think when you look at the underlying elements of attraction or \"theme\" of each community you can see some very stark differences.\n\nNamely:\n\n1. Most furries want to be the animals themselves. People who enjoy loli do not also imagine themselves as loli avatars most often. This means that furry relationships are established on grounds of egalitarianism within the fantasy-- i.e. both members are elements of fantasy, while in lolicon only one member is an element of fantasy. This naturally leads to a power imbalance between both sides of the fantasy in loli that is not present in furry fantasies.\n2. Furries are by definition thinking, feeling, expressive animals, thereby removing the main problem with actual beastiality which is that animals cannot consent. Furries are explicitly humanized animals, while lolis are the opposite-- dehumanized young girls.\n\nThese differences strike me as important.\n\nA person engaging in sexual relations with an animal is likely to be excluded from the community because the act goes against fundamental elements of what makes the furry a furry-- the person is not an animal and the animal cannot consent.\n\nHowever for lolicon, a person engaging in sexual relations with a child may not be excluded from the community because while it does not fall within the aesthetic preferences for the community, it may potentially still fall within the thematic preferences of the community. I.e. domination and objectification of a young, innocent, childlike figure by an older adult figure.\n\nThere are likely many within the loli community that are repulsed by the idea of having sex with an actual child because for them it is just a fantasy, same with how many people in BDSM communities are repulsed by the idea of actual rape. The problem is that just as many rapists find validation in BDSM, many potential child abusers may find validation in the loli community through these thematic elements being regularly admired and praised, and their potential victims will not have the means to protect themselves.", "timestamp": 1574902307 } ]	[ { "author": "sedqwe", "id": "f8vn8j2", "score": 435, "text": "where exactly is it treated like its normal?", "timestamp": 1574873237 }, { "author": "ThisAngryGirl", "id": "f8vne39", "score": 193, "text": "sîI guess it depends on where you frequent - it’s not something you’d say in public (although I can’t think of any fetishes/sexual things you would say in public), but largely, I’ve seen online where people discuss these things that Lolicon is distinct from pedophilia and they don’t share any common attributes or qualities. It’s just another fetish like feet or something.", "timestamp": 1574873333 }, { "author": "sedqwe", "id": "f8vnnlu", "score": 137, "text": "I agree, if they are attracted to images of children its pedophilia. I just disagree its considered normal, like you mention its not something they'd say in public because society would look down on them, as it should.", "timestamp": 1574873496 }, { "author": "ThisAngryGirl", "id": "f8vnvki", "score": 22, "text": "I don’t think anyone would say anything about their fetishes, even the ones that are super common, so it’s hard for me to say. Additionally, I feel we, as an American society, are okay with a type of pedophilia to an extent - 40 year old men being attracted to 15-16 year olds and willing to sexualize/be sexual with them if it were legal is problematic but not really what I’m talking about here. Just couldn’t help but bring that up.", "timestamp": 1574873636 }, { "author": "MasterGrok", "id": "f8vpmzn", "score": 113, "text": "Plenty of fetishes are perfectly accepted in society even if they aren't discussed at the dinner table. Also, a 40 year old having sex with a 15 to 16 year old isn't pedophilia. It may be rape depending on the state, but it is not pedophilia. Pedophilia is specifically related to attraction towards prepubescent children. The issue with post-pubescent teens is less about attraction and more about consent.", "timestamp": 1574874749 }, { "author": "ThisAngryGirl", "id": "f8vu3v1", "score": -17, "text": "I did say a type of pedophilia - which would be classified as Hebephilia which is classified as a subset.", "timestamp": 1574877299 } ]	[ "f8wivxz", "f8wj3h8", "f8wl7uv", "f8wln0p", "f8wpqwr", "f8wx4br" ]	[ "f8vn8j2", "f8vne39", "f8vnnlu", "f8vnvki", "f8vpmzn", "f8vu3v1" ]
CMV: Article 13 passing in the EU isn't a bad thing. Yes, it may affect the ability of people to post stuff online, such as memes, that they do not have the rights to use. However, coming from the standpoint of a photographer and graphic designer, I can't say that I would want a photo I took to get constantly shared on the internet without any credit coming to me. Everyone would know my work, but I would not benefit from it at all. Copyright should be respected, and it will help photographers/artists. I can't really think of a good reason, from a legal standpoint, to oppose Article 13. It may be annoying, but I think it will help the people whose photos get shared constantly without them giving consent or receiving compensation. That is just my take, but I don't have strong opinions either way yet. I'll be interested to see what the opposite perspective is.	Do you know how asinine YouTube's DMCA copyright claims are? They're about to get even worse. --- Can you elaborate? --- Article 13, among other things, is supposed to force sites like YouTube and Facebook to prevent people from uploading copyrighted material. YouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media. I don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song. --- >YouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media. >I don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song. I think that comes down to a number of things, or fair use. I am by no means an expert, but I think I have a decent understanding of fair use. The first factor in determining fair use is it must not be for profit, it must be used for the purposes of education, research, commentary, etc., and it must be transformative. The second factor is related to the nature of the original work. Typically, if it is more academical in nature rather than creative, it is more likely to be fair use. Also, it matters if the work is published or unpublished. Unpublished works are less often considered fair use because the creator should be able to control the first public appearance of his/her work. The third is in relation to how much of the original source is used. If the whole song is used, it is much less likely to be fair use than if a few lines are used. The fourth concerns the effect to the potential market for the original. From my understanding, the possibility that the use of the original source would increase interest in the original source isn't part of this. I am not fully sure on that, but that is my impression. I think what it is covering is the idea that if, for example, a song is reviewed in full on YouTube, then the market for the original may be decreased because people are able to listen to the full song regardless. Now, I'm not sure that that would be the case in that example, but that type of effect on the potential market for the original is what is trying to be prevented. Now, that is US laws. I don't know what the difference between them and the current EU laws are. Also, I don't know what YouTube's policy is specifically. It could be that YouTube states that if a copyright holder wants a video with their content taken down, that will be done. I don't know. I'd like more information, if you can give it, on exactly what would change in regards to things like music reviews. Would it just be easier for them to get taken down? Would they automatically get taken down? Also, does Article 13 increase the scope of existing copyright laws, or does it just require social platforms to monitor it more? --- Your understanding of fair use is correct. That's not the problem. There is actually nothing wrong with Article 13 if every video being uploaded was watched by a competent lawyer who determined if the use of some copyrighted material in the video was fair use or not. But that's not how the law will be implemented. It will be implemented by bots who will process videos automatically. YouTube and other sites already do this and their bots are insanely bad. Right now if you upload a video of your ameteur orchestra playing Beethoven, it will be taken down immediately because your music sounds like some copyrighted recording of Beethoven by some professional orchestra. To the bot it seems like you took the copyrighted audio and put your own video on top. The bots are bad. They just check if audio/video looks similar enough and they block. And that's the best that you can do. Now that it's required by law, the number of taken down videos will be taken down even more because platforms won't want to be fined. So they will err on the side of caution and block anything suspicious.	The biggest problem with it is that there are no fair use exemptions in the law. none at all. It does not matter if your work is trans-formative, it does not matter if you are doing a news report, --- In article 13? Does it change current laws or just mandate that social media platforms monitor them? --- Not social media platforms. Any platform on the internet that posts or hosts copyrighted materials must monitor, filter, and block copyrighted things if they do not have proof of permission. --- Okay, I get that, but did the copyright laws change, or do platforms have to monitor them better? That is all I'm asking. --- Yes they changed. With this new law there is no fair use.	9fcmgj	CMV: Article 13 passing in the EU isn't a bad thing.	Yes, it may affect the ability of people to post stuff online, such as memes, that they do not have the rights to use. However, coming from the standpoint of a photographer and graphic designer, I can't say that I would want a photo I took to get constantly shared on the internet without any credit coming to me. Everyone would know my work, but I would not benefit from it at all. Copyright should be respected, and it will help photographers/artists. I can't really think of a good reason, from a legal standpoint, to oppose Article 13. It may be annoying, but I think it will help the people whose photos get shared constantly without them giving consent or receiving compensation. That is just my take, but I don't have strong opinions either way yet. I'll be interested to see what the opposite perspective is.	ekill13	5	5	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "e5vhk1j", "score": 11, "text": "Do you know how asinine YouTube's DMCA copyright claims are? \n\nThey're about to get even worse. ", "timestamp": 1536794345 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vhohy", "score": 1, "text": "Can you elaborate?", "timestamp": 1536794478 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "e5vhuyz", "score": 13, "text": "Article 13, among other things, is supposed to force sites like YouTube and Facebook to prevent people from uploading copyrighted material.\n\nYouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media.\n\nI don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song. ", "timestamp": 1536794672 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vj03e", "score": -2, "text": ">YouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media.\n\n>I don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song. \n\nI think that comes down to a number of things, or fair use. I am by no means an expert, but I think I have a decent understanding of fair use. \n\nThe first factor in determining fair use is it must not be for profit, it must be used for the purposes of education, research, commentary, etc., and it must be transformative. \n\nThe second factor is related to the nature of the original work. Typically, if it is more academical in nature rather than creative, it is more likely to be fair use. Also, it matters if the work is published or unpublished. Unpublished works are less often considered fair use because the creator should be able to control the first public appearance of his/her work. \n\nThe third is in relation to how much of the original source is used. If the whole song is used, it is much less likely to be fair use than if a few lines are used. \n\nThe fourth concerns the effect to the potential market for the original. From my understanding, the possibility that the use of the original source would increase interest in the original source isn't part of this. I am not fully sure on that, but that is my impression. I think what it is covering is the idea that if, for example, a song is reviewed in full on YouTube, then the market for the original may be decreased because people are able to listen to the full song regardless. Now, I'm not sure that that would be the case in that example, but that type of effect on the potential market for the original is what is trying to be prevented. \n\nNow, that is US laws. I don't know what the difference between them and the current EU laws are. Also, I don't know what YouTube's policy is specifically. It could be that YouTube states that if a copyright holder wants a video with their content taken down, that will be done. I don't know. I'd like more information, if you can give it, on exactly what would change in regards to things like music reviews. Would it just be easier for them to get taken down? Would they automatically get taken down? Also, does Article 13 increase the scope of existing copyright laws, or does it just require social platforms to monitor it more?", "timestamp": 1536795828 }, { "author": "abdullahkhalids", "id": "e5x13q9", "score": 1, "text": "Your understanding of fair use is correct. That's not the problem. There is actually nothing wrong with Article 13 if every video being uploaded was watched by a competent lawyer who determined if the use of some copyrighted material in the video was fair use or not. \n\nBut that's not how the law will be implemented. It will be implemented by bots who will process videos automatically. YouTube and other sites already do this and their bots are insanely bad. Right now if you upload a video of your ameteur orchestra playing Beethoven, it will be taken down immediately because your music sounds like some copyrighted recording of Beethoven by some professional orchestra. To the bot it seems like you took the copyrighted audio and put your own video on top. The bots are bad. They just check if audio/video looks similar enough and they block. And that's the best that you can do. \n\nNow that it's required by law, the number of taken down videos will be taken down even more because platforms won't want to be fined. So they will err on the side of caution and block anything suspicious. ", "timestamp": 1536860788 } ]	[ { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "e5vn1wt", "score": 7, "text": "The biggest problem with it is that there are no fair use exemptions in the law. none at all. It does not matter if your work is trans-formative, it does not matter if you are doing a news report, ", "timestamp": 1536799861 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vnmbn", "score": 0, "text": "In article 13? Does it change current laws or just mandate that social media platforms monitor them?", "timestamp": 1536800423 }, { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "e5vo00v", "score": 6, "text": "Not social media platforms. Any platform on the internet that posts or hosts copyrighted materials must monitor, filter, and block copyrighted things if they do not have proof of permission. ", "timestamp": 1536800807 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vp372", "score": 1, "text": "Okay, I get that, but did the copyright laws change, or do platforms have to monitor them better? That is all I'm asking.", "timestamp": 1536801895 }, { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "e5vp9vq", "score": 4, "text": "Yes they changed. With this new law there is no fair use. ", "timestamp": 1536802077 } ]	[ "e5vhk1j", "e5vhohy", "e5vhuyz", "e5vj03e", "e5x13q9" ]	[ "e5vn1wt", "e5vnmbn", "e5vo00v", "e5vp372", "e5vp9vq" ]
CMV: Article 13 passing in the EU isn't a bad thing. Yes, it may affect the ability of people to post stuff online, such as memes, that they do not have the rights to use. However, coming from the standpoint of a photographer and graphic designer, I can't say that I would want a photo I took to get constantly shared on the internet without any credit coming to me. Everyone would know my work, but I would not benefit from it at all. Copyright should be respected, and it will help photographers/artists. I can't really think of a good reason, from a legal standpoint, to oppose Article 13. It may be annoying, but I think it will help the people whose photos get shared constantly without them giving consent or receiving compensation. That is just my take, but I don't have strong opinions either way yet. I'll be interested to see what the opposite perspective is.	I don't really like your example. The photographer gets so much more reach if their photos are spread via memes. Let's say a niche photographer's typical album reaches 10000 people. One of their photos gets turned into a meme and reaches 1 million people. Only 0.01% of people who saw the meme liked the photo and actually wanted to find more. This means that this photographer has doubled their reach due to a moderately viral meme. This is an undeniably good thing even if 99.99% of people have no idea who the photographer is. This is why a lot of indie game developers pay youtubers to play their games. It is an excellent way to reach a broader audience. The numbers I used obviously aren't perfect but I hope I get the point across. --- I get your point, but I don't think that is the reasoning behind copyright laws. A photographer should have the right, and does legally have the right, until a time at which he/she chooses to give that right to someone else, how his/her photo will be used. That is not the case when a photo becomes a meme. I am sure that some photographers think it is cool to see their photo as a meme, but I don't think it is fair to photographers to not give them the ability to refuse a certain use for the work they created. With a meme, if one person was creating it, or even a few, a photographer could send a cease and desist letter if they didn't want their photo used in that way, but with the way memes are made, there are almost limitless numbers of people who make them. Ultimately, I think it comes down to who has the right to use the photo. That is the photographer, and anyone he/she chooses to give that right to. Yes, someone using a photo without the photographer's consent may double the his/her reach, but that doesn't make it right. --- Well here’s a negative side effect. Various companies have already just started blanket banning Eu ip addresses. For example the la times has done it. Also this falls in the category of the artist has the choice to not put their stuff on the Internet. They are putting it on the Internet so that it gets more attention or is easier to access. They have to weigh the positives against the negatives. Trying to control the Internet is like trying to control conversation in a public space. You could but it’s going to be really freaking hard. Instead you focus on stopping the big deal crimes that are going on in public space. And I can already guarantee you this is just going to hurt people in the Eu. The United States will never enforce this. The republican side would be angry on the grounds of free speech and that its more government interference. Young democrats are going to be against at the very least just because they like the Internet how it it. For at least 3/4 of the country this is likely to be unpopular. So you won’t get the United States going for it and the rest of the world if it has to choose between the 2 it’s going to do what it thinks will keep the United States happy and it makes their lives easier. It’s a double win for them. The Eu is basically trying to creat their own version of China’s great fire wall.	Do you know how asinine YouTube's DMCA copyright claims are? They're about to get even worse. --- Can you elaborate? --- Article 13, among other things, is supposed to force sites like YouTube and Facebook to prevent people from uploading copyrighted material. YouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media. I don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song.	9fcmgj	CMV: Article 13 passing in the EU isn't a bad thing.	Yes, it may affect the ability of people to post stuff online, such as memes, that they do not have the rights to use. However, coming from the standpoint of a photographer and graphic designer, I can't say that I would want a photo I took to get constantly shared on the internet without any credit coming to me. Everyone would know my work, but I would not benefit from it at all. Copyright should be respected, and it will help photographers/artists. I can't really think of a good reason, from a legal standpoint, to oppose Article 13. It may be annoying, but I think it will help the people whose photos get shared constantly without them giving consent or receiving compensation. That is just my take, but I don't have strong opinions either way yet. I'll be interested to see what the opposite perspective is.	ekill13	3	3	[ { "author": "guyanese_gangster", "id": "e5vh98e", "score": 9, "text": "I don't really like your example. The photographer gets so much more reach if their photos are spread via memes. Let's say a niche photographer's typical album reaches 10000 people. One of their photos gets turned into a meme and reaches 1 million people. Only 0.01% of people who saw the meme liked the photo and actually wanted to find more. This means that this photographer has doubled their reach due to a moderately viral meme. This is an undeniably good thing even if 99.99% of people have no idea who the photographer is.\n\nThis is why a lot of indie game developers pay youtubers to play their games. It is an excellent way to reach a broader audience. \n\nThe numbers I used obviously aren't perfect but I hope I get the point across. ", "timestamp": 1536794028 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vhlk2", "score": 1, "text": "I get your point, but I don't think that is the reasoning behind copyright laws. A photographer should have the right, and does legally have the right, until a time at which he/she chooses to give that right to someone else, how his/her photo will be used. That is not the case when a photo becomes a meme. I am sure that some photographers think it is cool to see their photo as a meme, but I don't think it is fair to photographers to not give them the ability to refuse a certain use for the work they created. With a meme, if one person was creating it, or even a few, a photographer could send a cease and desist letter if they didn't want their photo used in that way, but with the way memes are made, there are almost limitless numbers of people who make them. Ultimately, I think it comes down to who has the right to use the photo. That is the photographer, and anyone he/she chooses to give that right to. Yes, someone using a photo without the photographer's consent may double the his/her reach, but that doesn't make it right.\n", "timestamp": 1536794390 }, { "author": "David4194d", "id": "e5w9ato", "score": 3, "text": "Well here’s a negative side effect. Various companies have already just started blanket banning Eu ip addresses. For example the la times has done it. \nAlso this falls in the category of the artist has the choice to not put their stuff on the Internet. They are putting it on the Internet so that it gets more attention or is easier to access. They have to weigh the positives against the negatives. Trying to control the Internet is like trying to control conversation in a public space. You could but it’s going to be really freaking hard. Instead you focus on stopping the big deal crimes that are going on in public space. \nAnd I can already guarantee you this is just going to hurt people in the Eu. The United States will never enforce this. \nThe republican side would be angry on the grounds of free speech and that its more government interference. Young democrats are going to be against at the very least just because they like the Internet how it it. For at least 3/4 of the country this is likely to be unpopular. So you won’t get the United States going for it and the rest of the world if it has to choose between the 2 it’s going to do what it thinks will keep the United States happy and it makes their lives easier. It’s a double win for them. \nThe Eu is basically trying to creat their own version of China’s great fire wall.", "timestamp": 1536831015 } ]	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "e5vhk1j", "score": 11, "text": "Do you know how asinine YouTube's DMCA copyright claims are? \n\nThey're about to get even worse. ", "timestamp": 1536794345 }, { "author": "ekill13", "id": "e5vhohy", "score": 1, "text": "Can you elaborate?", "timestamp": 1536794478 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "e5vhuyz", "score": 13, "text": "Article 13, among other things, is supposed to force sites like YouTube and Facebook to prevent people from uploading copyrighted material.\n\nYouTube already has issues of companies taking down reviews of media based on the fact they actually show small bits of said media.\n\nI don't want a world in which you can't review a song on YouTube because you can't actually play the song. ", "timestamp": 1536794672 } ]	[ "e5vh98e", "e5vhlk2", "e5w9ato" ]	[ "e5vhk1j", "e5vhohy", "e5vhuyz" ]
CMV: It is impossible to move to a single payer in the US, unless we are OK with a recession in the short-term and availability of healthcare being diminished With ACA staying as the law of the land and many advocating to move to a single payer system, I started to think how would we exactly implement this. More importantly, what would be the implications of moving from the current system to a Single Payer. It seems that the headache of removing health insurance companies from the economy would be hurtful in the short term and we might not recover from it at all. Pros: Now even though we would lose a lot of productivity geared toward health insurance we would be getting some benefits. Single Payer means that the government would pay providers 56 to 80 cents of what insurers currently pay them. That's a huge discount for the patients and the government. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#7f651e923173) Cons: 1) Economic downturn due to the elimination of healthcare insurance. Removing all insurance companies would cost up to 1M jobs (using United Healthcare as a proxy 230K EEs, and 20% of industry). If we were to say overnight that 1M people would lose their jobs that would impact the economy significantly, especially considering that these folks are generally paid significantly more than minimum wage. Using United Health care again as a proxy, that number is closer to $150B ($28B in Operating costs). In other words firing all these people would cost the economy $150B per year. Some cities like Hartford CT would just be devastated. I understand that some people would get a job with the government, or other private companies, but let's be honest the transition would be brutal. 2) Even though we stand to get a discount by moving to Single Payer, it is not likely it will be possible to have all providers agreeing with 20-40% reduction in pay. For example nurses who use to make $80K are going to now make $50-60K, or we will see less nurses available by firing them, or we will see less nurses because they won't want lower salaries. The last two situations will lead to less healthcare regardless, and longer lines. If we see such situation in the first 2 years of implementing single payer it will be its death. The other option for the government would be to pay exactly insurer rates, that would mean higher increase in taxation that we would anticipate. 3) Taxation will be much higher than people think: If the government were to take on the rest of healthcare (currently paying for 46% via Medicare / Medicaid), it would cost and additional $1.6 Trillion per year (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf). That's about $12K per worker (128M US workforce). This is huge. I make fairly good money but I would freak out having to pay such a huge bill for healthcare. My employer would need to pay me $10-15K more money to replace that loss in salary. I don't think all employers will do so, and more importantly, the cost of healthcare won't match over time. Overall, I just don't see it happening. This seems like a political disaster at least in the first 3-4 years of implementation. I want to cheer for Singe Payer by seeing its success abroad, but it seems we are too far down the rabbit hole to do Single Payer in the US. Let me know what you think. FYI: I am not considering whether the US government would be capable of administering a program like this. I am assuming it would be as good as the current Medicare/Medicaid programs. Definitions: single payer means that anyone can walk to a hospital and get treatment, the Government (Federal or State) would pay for all the costs. I know there are slight differences but I would like if we can limit it to this definition: no taxpayer will pay for healthcare when sick, all the payments are made through taxation. Additionally, the government administers the system, no health insurance involved in providing health care (at least basic health care that we all want to benefit) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Big mistake in your logic. No one pays the list price now. Every doctor I have ever seen has a price for a procedure/say $1000. But insurance only pays $699 and they accept it. So is the price $699 or $1000? Also under a single payer they would get paid without the mounds of paperwork unique to each insurer. I am a pharmacist and each insurer has their own set of rules and payment process. We used to have on average 20-30k of rejected claims that we had to manually reconcile. A single payer with a single set of eligibility rules would be a god send. The system before ACA was untenable and was a slow motion train wreck. ACA needs some fixes and not cheap political theater. --- Thanks for pointing this out. So you are saying that Medicaid, Medicare, and Insurers reimbursement prices are the same? I would think the government would use their weight to get better pricing, no? I still think the other points do stand regarding jobs elimination and increase in taxation that would be politically suicidal. --- Regarding job elimination, wouldn't this just be the elimination of unnecessary jobs? If more people are getting cheaper healthcare with the involvement of fewer people, wouldn't this make the economy healthier? The healthcare industry would be less bloated and more efficient, and in the long run other sectors of the economy would benefit from cheaper, more-skilled labour. No?	Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers. On taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class. This might be an objection to some, but it's wrong to think of you having to pay 12k extra. Also, remember that the increase in taxes would replace payment into healthcare plans by individuals and corporations. Edit- As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition. --- > On taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class. Do you realise just how much this sounds like wishful thinking? I doubt this is actually possible, let alone that someone was ptoposed a concrete proposal on how to raise that many taxes. --- > nds like wishful thinking? I doubt this is actually possible, let alone that someone was ptoposed a concrete proposal on how to raise that many taxes. OP said that the cost would be 12k a person, and despite his decent income, that would be prohibitive. My response was that people like him wouldn't be footing the bill. What exactly is the problem with my response? Equalizing capital gains taxes would be a start, as well as stopping companies from using foreign tax havens. The rest would be higher taxes on excessive incomes. This isn't rocket science	6qkcwe	CMV: It is impossible to move to a single payer in the US, unless we are OK with a recession in the short-term and availability of healthcare being diminished	With ACA staying as the law of the land and many advocating to move to a single payer system, I started to think how would we exactly implement this. More importantly, what would be the implications of moving from the current system to a Single Payer. It seems that the headache of removing health insurance companies from the economy would be hurtful in the short term and we might not recover from it at all. Pros: Now even though we would lose a lot of productivity geared toward health insurance we would be getting some benefits. Single Payer means that the government would pay providers 56 to 80 cents of what insurers currently pay them. That's a huge discount for the patients and the government. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#7f651e923173) Cons: 1) Economic downturn due to the elimination of healthcare insurance. Removing all insurance companies would cost up to 1M jobs (using United Healthcare as a proxy 230K EEs, and 20% of industry). If we were to say overnight that 1M people would lose their jobs that would impact the economy significantly, especially considering that these folks are generally paid significantly more than minimum wage. Using United Health care again as a proxy, that number is closer to $150B ($28B in Operating costs). In other words firing all these people would cost the economy $150B per year. Some cities like Hartford CT would just be devastated. I understand that some people would get a job with the government, or other private companies, but let's be honest the transition would be brutal. 2) Even though we stand to get a discount by moving to Single Payer, it is not likely it will be possible to have all providers agreeing with 20-40% reduction in pay. For example nurses who use to make $80K are going to now make $50-60K, or we will see less nurses available by firing them, or we will see less nurses because they won't want lower salaries. The last two situations will lead to less healthcare regardless, and longer lines. If we see such situation in the first 2 years of implementing single payer it will be its death. The other option for the government would be to pay exactly insurer rates, that would mean higher increase in taxation that we would anticipate. 3) Taxation will be much higher than people think: If the government were to take on the rest of healthcare (currently paying for 46% via Medicare / Medicaid), it would cost and additional $1.6 Trillion per year (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf). That's about $12K per worker (128M US workforce). This is huge. I make fairly good money but I would freak out having to pay such a huge bill for healthcare. My employer would need to pay me $10-15K more money to replace that loss in salary. I don't think all employers will do so, and more importantly, the cost of healthcare won't match over time. Overall, I just don't see it happening. This seems like a political disaster at least in the first 3-4 years of implementation. I want to cheer for Singe Payer by seeing its success abroad, but it seems we are too far down the rabbit hole to do Single Payer in the US. Let me know what you think. FYI: I am not considering whether the US government would be capable of administering a program like this. I am assuming it would be as good as the current Medicare/Medicaid programs. Definitions: single payer means that anyone can walk to a hospital and get treatment, the Government (Federal or State) would pay for all the costs. I know there are slight differences but I would like if we can limit it to this definition: no taxpayer will pay for healthcare when sick, all the payments are made through taxation. Additionally, the government administers the system, no health insurance involved in providing health care (at least basic health care that we all want to benefit) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	johnniewelker	3	3	[ { "author": "trucorsair", "id": "dkxwzfu", "score": 6, "text": "Big mistake in your logic. No one pays the list price now. Every doctor I have ever seen has a price for a procedure/say $1000. But insurance only pays $699 and they accept it. So is the price $699 or $1000? Also under a single payer they would get paid without the mounds of paperwork unique to each insurer. I am a pharmacist and each insurer has their own set of rules and payment process. We used to have on average 20-30k of rejected claims that we had to manually reconcile. A single payer with a single set of eligibility rules would be a god send.\n\nThe system before ACA was untenable and was a slow motion train wreck. ACA needs some fixes and not cheap political theater.", "timestamp": 1501454095 }, { "author": "johnniewelker", "id": "dkxx4uo", "score": 2, "text": "Thanks for pointing this out. So you are saying that Medicaid, Medicare, and Insurers reimbursement prices are the same? I would think the government would use their weight to get better pricing, no?\n\nI still think the other points do stand regarding jobs elimination and increase in taxation that would be politically suicidal. ", "timestamp": 1501454311 }, { "author": "bouched", "id": "dkxyb4r", "score": 1, "text": "Regarding job elimination, wouldn't this just be the elimination of unnecessary jobs? If more people are getting cheaper healthcare with the involvement of fewer people, wouldn't this make the economy healthier? The healthcare industry would be less bloated and more efficient, and in the long run other sectors of the economy would benefit from cheaper, more-skilled labour. No?", "timestamp": 1501456001 } ]	[ { "author": "sillybonobo", "id": "dkxy6cg", "score": 10, "text": "Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers.\n\nOn taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class. This might be an objection to some, but it's wrong to think of you having to pay 12k extra. Also, remember that the increase in taxes would replace payment into healthcare plans by individuals and corporations.\n\nEdit- As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition.", "timestamp": 1501455811 }, { "author": "DefinitelyShitpost", "id": "dkyda7h", "score": 1, "text": "> On taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class.\n\nDo you realise just how much this sounds like wishful thinking? I doubt this is actually possible, let alone that someone was ptoposed a concrete proposal on how to raise that many taxes.", "timestamp": 1501478681 }, { "author": "sillybonobo", "id": "dkydeur", "score": 2, "text": "> nds like wishful thinking? I doubt this is actually possible, let alone that someone was ptoposed a concrete proposal on how to raise that many taxes.\n\nOP said that the cost would be 12k a person, and despite his decent income, that would be prohibitive. My response was that people like him wouldn't be footing the bill. What exactly is the problem with my response? Equalizing capital gains taxes would be a start, as well as stopping companies from using foreign tax havens. The rest would be higher taxes on excessive incomes. This isn't rocket science", "timestamp": 1501478933 } ]	[ "dkxwzfu", "dkxx4uo", "dkxyb4r" ]	[ "dkxy6cg", "dkyda7h", "dkydeur" ]
CMV: It is impossible to move to a single payer in the US, unless we are OK with a recession in the short-term and availability of healthcare being diminished With ACA staying as the law of the land and many advocating to move to a single payer system, I started to think how would we exactly implement this. More importantly, what would be the implications of moving from the current system to a Single Payer. It seems that the headache of removing health insurance companies from the economy would be hurtful in the short term and we might not recover from it at all. Pros: Now even though we would lose a lot of productivity geared toward health insurance we would be getting some benefits. Single Payer means that the government would pay providers 56 to 80 cents of what insurers currently pay them. That's a huge discount for the patients and the government. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#7f651e923173) Cons: 1) Economic downturn due to the elimination of healthcare insurance. Removing all insurance companies would cost up to 1M jobs (using United Healthcare as a proxy 230K EEs, and 20% of industry). If we were to say overnight that 1M people would lose their jobs that would impact the economy significantly, especially considering that these folks are generally paid significantly more than minimum wage. Using United Health care again as a proxy, that number is closer to $150B ($28B in Operating costs). In other words firing all these people would cost the economy $150B per year. Some cities like Hartford CT would just be devastated. I understand that some people would get a job with the government, or other private companies, but let's be honest the transition would be brutal. 2) Even though we stand to get a discount by moving to Single Payer, it is not likely it will be possible to have all providers agreeing with 20-40% reduction in pay. For example nurses who use to make $80K are going to now make $50-60K, or we will see less nurses available by firing them, or we will see less nurses because they won't want lower salaries. The last two situations will lead to less healthcare regardless, and longer lines. If we see such situation in the first 2 years of implementing single payer it will be its death. The other option for the government would be to pay exactly insurer rates, that would mean higher increase in taxation that we would anticipate. 3) Taxation will be much higher than people think: If the government were to take on the rest of healthcare (currently paying for 46% via Medicare / Medicaid), it would cost and additional $1.6 Trillion per year (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf). That's about $12K per worker (128M US workforce). This is huge. I make fairly good money but I would freak out having to pay such a huge bill for healthcare. My employer would need to pay me $10-15K more money to replace that loss in salary. I don't think all employers will do so, and more importantly, the cost of healthcare won't match over time. Overall, I just don't see it happening. This seems like a political disaster at least in the first 3-4 years of implementation. I want to cheer for Singe Payer by seeing its success abroad, but it seems we are too far down the rabbit hole to do Single Payer in the US. Let me know what you think. FYI: I am not considering whether the US government would be capable of administering a program like this. I am assuming it would be as good as the current Medicare/Medicaid programs. Definitions: single payer means that anyone can walk to a hospital and get treatment, the Government (Federal or State) would pay for all the costs. I know there are slight differences but I would like if we can limit it to this definition: no taxpayer will pay for healthcare when sick, all the payments are made through taxation. Additionally, the government administers the system, no health insurance involved in providing health care (at least basic health care that we all want to benefit) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers. On taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class. This might be an objection to some, but it's wrong to think of you having to pay 12k extra. Also, remember that the increase in taxes would replace payment into healthcare plans by individuals and corporations. Edit- As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition. --- >Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers. I am not following this 100%. Removing insurance jobs means insurance business productivity equaling to zero. More healthcare economic activity would happen only if you believe that currently healthcare professionals are under-productive, which I'd be surprised. Given we would have single payer wouldn't that mean a more money spent by the government if providers become so busy in the short term? >As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition That's what I am looking for. What would it look like in practicality? If I am a shareholder of an insurance company and learned that we are transitioning to Single Payer wouldn't it make more sense to liquidate that company and take all the dividends, and hence collapsing the current system faster? --- Much of the insurance jobs (but not all) would shift into the running of the single payer system. They still need workers to run that stuff. And there would be more people going to the hospital so there would be more need for desk workers at hospitals, more need for nurses, more need for doctors. That is an economic increase, not decrease. The way it would work is that during the transitioning period the government prevents liquidation from occurring. They basically freeze all insurance companies where they are at till they are specifically shut down during the transition process and everything is complete.	Big mistake in your logic. No one pays the list price now. Every doctor I have ever seen has a price for a procedure/say $1000. But insurance only pays $699 and they accept it. So is the price $699 or $1000? Also under a single payer they would get paid without the mounds of paperwork unique to each insurer. I am a pharmacist and each insurer has their own set of rules and payment process. We used to have on average 20-30k of rejected claims that we had to manually reconcile. A single payer with a single set of eligibility rules would be a god send. The system before ACA was untenable and was a slow motion train wreck. ACA needs some fixes and not cheap political theater. --- Thanks for pointing this out. So you are saying that Medicaid, Medicare, and Insurers reimbursement prices are the same? I would think the government would use their weight to get better pricing, no? I still think the other points do stand regarding jobs elimination and increase in taxation that would be politically suicidal. --- No they aren't. Each company negotiates for their own set of discounts and reimbursement. The insanity of the pricing and billing structure is a major MAJOR drawback to the current system. Best example of insanity? Medicare is the biggest payer for prescription drugs but Medicare is FORBIDDEN from negotiating prices like other insurers are. http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/searching-for-savings-in-medicare-drug-price-negotiations/	6qkcwe	CMV: It is impossible to move to a single payer in the US, unless we are OK with a recession in the short-term and availability of healthcare being diminished	With ACA staying as the law of the land and many advocating to move to a single payer system, I started to think how would we exactly implement this. More importantly, what would be the implications of moving from the current system to a Single Payer. It seems that the headache of removing health insurance companies from the economy would be hurtful in the short term and we might not recover from it at all. Pros: Now even though we would lose a lot of productivity geared toward health insurance we would be getting some benefits. Single Payer means that the government would pay providers 56 to 80 cents of what insurers currently pay them. That's a huge discount for the patients and the government. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/01/05/doctors-face-a-huge-medicare-and-medicaid-pay-cut-in-2015/#7f651e923173) Cons: 1) Economic downturn due to the elimination of healthcare insurance. Removing all insurance companies would cost up to 1M jobs (using United Healthcare as a proxy 230K EEs, and 20% of industry). If we were to say overnight that 1M people would lose their jobs that would impact the economy significantly, especially considering that these folks are generally paid significantly more than minimum wage. Using United Health care again as a proxy, that number is closer to $150B ($28B in Operating costs). In other words firing all these people would cost the economy $150B per year. Some cities like Hartford CT would just be devastated. I understand that some people would get a job with the government, or other private companies, but let's be honest the transition would be brutal. 2) Even though we stand to get a discount by moving to Single Payer, it is not likely it will be possible to have all providers agreeing with 20-40% reduction in pay. For example nurses who use to make $80K are going to now make $50-60K, or we will see less nurses available by firing them, or we will see less nurses because they won't want lower salaries. The last two situations will lead to less healthcare regardless, and longer lines. If we see such situation in the first 2 years of implementing single payer it will be its death. The other option for the government would be to pay exactly insurer rates, that would mean higher increase in taxation that we would anticipate. 3) Taxation will be much higher than people think: If the government were to take on the rest of healthcare (currently paying for 46% via Medicare / Medicaid), it would cost and additional $1.6 Trillion per year (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf). That's about $12K per worker (128M US workforce). This is huge. I make fairly good money but I would freak out having to pay such a huge bill for healthcare. My employer would need to pay me $10-15K more money to replace that loss in salary. I don't think all employers will do so, and more importantly, the cost of healthcare won't match over time. Overall, I just don't see it happening. This seems like a political disaster at least in the first 3-4 years of implementation. I want to cheer for Singe Payer by seeing its success abroad, but it seems we are too far down the rabbit hole to do Single Payer in the US. Let me know what you think. FYI: I am not considering whether the US government would be capable of administering a program like this. I am assuming it would be as good as the current Medicare/Medicaid programs. Definitions: single payer means that anyone can walk to a hospital and get treatment, the Government (Federal or State) would pay for all the costs. I know there are slight differences but I would like if we can limit it to this definition: no taxpayer will pay for healthcare when sick, all the payments are made through taxation. Additionally, the government administers the system, no health insurance involved in providing health care (at least basic health care that we all want to benefit) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	johnniewelker	3	3	[ { "author": "sillybonobo", "id": "dkxy6cg", "score": 10, "text": "Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers.\n\nOn taxation, yes there would be an increase, but it will be borne by the rich and corporations, not the middle class. This might be an objection to some, but it's wrong to think of you having to pay 12k extra. Also, remember that the increase in taxes would replace payment into healthcare plans by individuals and corporations.\n\nEdit- As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition.", "timestamp": 1501455811 }, { "author": "johnniewelker", "id": "dkxyyc7", "score": 2, "text": ">Another point to note- while we will have decreased economic activity in the insurance sector we will have increased economic activity in the healthcare sector. This means more jobs for doctors, nurses, aides and other related services. The ACA basically funded a remodel of my SO's hospital (a nurse practitioner) by increasing the number of paying customers.\n\nI am not following this 100%. Removing insurance jobs means insurance business productivity equaling to zero. More healthcare economic activity would happen only if you believe that currently healthcare professionals are under-productive, which I'd be surprised. Given we would have single payer wouldn't that mean a more money spent by the government if providers become so busy in the short term? \n\n>As to the practicality, remember that these things don't happen overnight. There would be transition periods. Actually, the best way to do it would go public option (medicare for all) and slowly increase its scope. This avoids the shock to the markets and allows for a smooth transition\n\nThat's what I am looking for. What would it look like in practicality? If I am a shareholder of an insurance company and learned that we are transitioning to Single Payer wouldn't it make more sense to liquidate that company and take all the dividends, and hence collapsing the current system faster? ", "timestamp": 1501456949 }, { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "dky2nvc", "score": 3, "text": "Much of the insurance jobs (but not all) would shift into the running of the single payer system. They still need workers to run that stuff. And there would be more people going to the hospital so there would be more need for desk workers at hospitals, more need for nurses, more need for doctors. That is an economic increase, not decrease. \n\nThe way it would work is that during the transitioning period the government prevents liquidation from occurring. They basically freeze all insurance companies where they are at till they are specifically shut down during the transition process and everything is complete. ", "timestamp": 1501462412 } ]	[ { "author": "trucorsair", "id": "dkxwzfu", "score": 6, "text": "Big mistake in your logic. No one pays the list price now. Every doctor I have ever seen has a price for a procedure/say $1000. But insurance only pays $699 and they accept it. So is the price $699 or $1000? Also under a single payer they would get paid without the mounds of paperwork unique to each insurer. I am a pharmacist and each insurer has their own set of rules and payment process. We used to have on average 20-30k of rejected claims that we had to manually reconcile. A single payer with a single set of eligibility rules would be a god send.\n\nThe system before ACA was untenable and was a slow motion train wreck. ACA needs some fixes and not cheap political theater.", "timestamp": 1501454095 }, { "author": "johnniewelker", "id": "dkxx4uo", "score": 2, "text": "Thanks for pointing this out. So you are saying that Medicaid, Medicare, and Insurers reimbursement prices are the same? I would think the government would use their weight to get better pricing, no?\n\nI still think the other points do stand regarding jobs elimination and increase in taxation that would be politically suicidal. ", "timestamp": 1501454311 }, { "author": "trucorsair", "id": "dky02x7", "score": 5, "text": "No they aren't. Each company negotiates for their own set of discounts and reimbursement. The insanity of the pricing and billing structure is a major MAJOR drawback to the current system. \n\nBest example of insanity? Medicare is the biggest payer for prescription drugs but Medicare is FORBIDDEN from negotiating prices like other insurers are. \n\n\nhttp://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/searching-for-savings-in-medicare-drug-price-negotiations/\n\n", "timestamp": 1501458632 } ]	[ "dkxy6cg", "dkxyyc7", "dky2nvc" ]	[ "dkxwzfu", "dkxx4uo", "dky02x7" ]
CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech. There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy But these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good? --- Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it. --- The problem with this is that it lends them legitimacy. Take climate change debates. On one side you have a man with thirty years experience in the field, a nobel prize etc etc, on the other, this fucking wackjob polisci professor who doesn't know shit about climate. But they are on stage together. And due to the way humans think, the fact that they are there to speak at all lends legitimacy to their argument. We see this again and again in culture, from flat earth crap to trump election lies. Allowing Nazi's a platform to speak just allows them to spread their message. The idea that we can just dunk on these people and the rational argument will win out is a fallacy. Even worse, the people who spout this crap are dishonest. They play with words, toying with the idea of free speech and portraying themselves as just another ideology. What is wrong with being a white identitarian, black people are proud of their ideology why can't I be. But the second these people get power they will put the boot on your goddamn neck and stomp. Nazi fucks don't give a single solitary damn about free speech, they just pretend to because if society indulges them then they can build a following. These people fear and whine about deplatforming because it works.	Okay so lets see this with another simple light, lets pretend life is a school with students teachers and managers. There is a headmaster which can be considerer powers, media power, guvermental power, but in essence people who have more or a choice in changing the school than students but students still choose how to live. There is a lot of bullying but teachers just say "Its their right to do so" so it continues and it get worse and worse and children are starting to kill themselves. On the other hand staff starts acting on the children, they protect them and see that the bullies have a rough life at home so their hate turns towards other people (Nazis have this thing going on imo) and children start to learn. Sure on the first scenario some children may defend themselves but it woud still be hostile. You are right, everyone has the right to chose how they want to live, people have the right to choose to murder, kill and hate on others, but free will doesn't mean its good for them or others. There is a problem in sociaty and its a censorship on aggresiveness, he have emotions and anger is one of them and you can have anger and manage it in a responsible way. When I get angry at my partner I dont push him or hit him or insult him I get a cushion and hit it until I am calm, then I write all my feelings about him and then we both read it together to see what the issue is. I feel hate speech is like the last resort for people to use their anger in a way that is more or less socially acceptable, hating minorities or women is much more common than just hating everyone and punching people on the street. My father was very misogynistic because he had a very demanding mother he just proyected that into all women and hit me a lot. Was my father entitled to feel hate and anger? Sure, but not being responsible of his actions made other lifes much more harder and miserable and even his own. I feel censoring hate speech is good, because it forces the person to stop the flow of hate due to not having no one to trow it to. After the anger fit it is a good idea to try to dive deep into what caused that anger. If we let that anger grow and grow and permeate it will metastasize and create a living hell. The world is much more complex than this because I am just talking as if I was looking at in individual but if you multiply those individual hate there you have nazism and all. Hope it helps (I didnt go political because I deep down dont think they are political issues) --- The crucial part that you are missing is that they are not children being placed in the custody of a separate authority to work towards a specific purpose, I.e. learning. They are free citizens engaging in their government protected rights. hate speech is free speech plain and simple. It is a trusism at this point but it needs to be stated, common pleasant speech wouldnt need to be protected. What one person considers hate speech another might not. You pass a law today to outlaw and censor nazi hatespeech, tomorrow the reigns of power are in the hands of an christian/islamic majority who believe as much as you do, that pro lgbtq speech is hate speech that should be banned. The principals from which your argument stands is one that will inevitably bite you back and make life worse for everyone. --- Well the children part is just the first part of my comment and its an analogy. I also focused on a more individual approach than a societal approach as you are doing so, this isnt a you are right or wrong I am just giving out what I think is an alternative view which is the purpose of the subreddit. Wishing hate on others saying it will bite my back and make life worse like, no need to be rude, if you dont want to listen to others opinions dont post here.	muvrf4	CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech.	There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	Butterboi_Oooska	3	3	[ { "author": "BeatriceBernardo", "id": "gv85hem", "score": 13, "text": "> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy\n\nBut these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good?", "timestamp": 1618940363 }, { "author": "Butterboi_Oooska", "id": "gv85qvw", "score": 2, "text": "Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it.", "timestamp": 1618940470 }, { "author": "edwardlleandre", "id": "gv88l8n", "score": 32, "text": "The problem with this is that it lends them legitimacy.\n\nTake climate change debates. On one side you have a man with thirty years experience in the field, a nobel prize etc etc, on the other, this fucking wackjob polisci professor who doesn't know shit about climate.\n\nBut they are on stage together. And due to the way humans think, the fact that they are there to speak at all lends legitimacy to their argument.\n\nWe see this again and again in culture, from flat earth crap to trump election lies. Allowing Nazi's a platform to speak just allows them to spread their message. The idea that we can just dunk on these people and the rational argument will win out is a fallacy.\n\nEven worse, the people who spout this crap are dishonest. They play with words, toying with the idea of free speech and portraying themselves as just another ideology. What is wrong with being a white identitarian, black people are proud of their ideology why can't I be.\n\nBut the second these people get power they will put the boot on your goddamn neck and stomp. Nazi fucks don't give a single solitary damn about free speech, they just pretend to because if society indulges them then they can build a following.\n\nThese people fear and whine about deplatforming because it works.", "timestamp": 1618941627 } ]	[ { "author": "Whateveridontkare", "id": "gv899zk", "score": 0, "text": " \n\nOkay so lets see this with another simple light, lets pretend life is a school with students teachers and managers. There is a headmaster which can be considerer powers, media power, guvermental power, but in essence people who have more or a choice in changing the school than students but students still choose how to live. There is a lot of bullying but teachers just say \"Its their right to do so\" so it continues and it get worse and worse and children are starting to kill themselves.\n\nOn the other hand staff starts acting on the children, they protect them and see that the bullies have a rough life at home so their hate turns towards other people (Nazis have this thing going on imo) and children start to learn. Sure on the first scenario some children may defend themselves but it woud still be hostile.\n\nYou are right, everyone has the right to chose how they want to live, people have the right to choose to murder, kill and hate on others, but free will doesn't mean its good for them or others.\n\nThere is a problem in sociaty and its a censorship on aggresiveness, he have emotions and anger is one of them and you can have anger and manage it in a responsible way. When I get angry at my partner I dont push him or hit him or insult him I get a cushion and hit it until I am calm, then I write all my feelings about him and then we both read it together to see what the issue is.\n\nI feel hate speech is like the last resort for people to use their anger in a way that is more or less socially acceptable, hating minorities or women is much more common than just hating everyone and punching people on the street. My father was very misogynistic because he had a very demanding mother he just proyected that into all women and hit me a lot. Was my father entitled to feel hate and anger? Sure, but not being responsible of his actions made other lifes much more harder and miserable and even his own.\n\nI feel censoring hate speech is good, because it forces the person to stop the flow of hate due to not having no one to trow it to. After the anger fit it is a good idea to try to dive deep into what caused that anger. If we let that anger grow and grow and permeate it will metastasize and create a living hell.\n\nThe world is much more complex than this because I am just talking as if I was looking at in individual but if you multiply those individual hate there you have nazism and all. Hope it helps (I didnt go political because I deep down dont think they are political issues)", "timestamp": 1618941908 }, { "author": "EatAssIsGross", "id": "gv8durb", "score": -1, "text": "The crucial part that you are missing is that they are not children being placed in the custody of a separate authority to work towards a specific purpose, I.e. learning.\n\nThey are free citizens engaging in their government protected rights. hate speech is free speech plain and simple. It is a trusism at this point but it needs to be stated, common pleasant speech wouldnt need to be protected. What one person considers hate speech another might not. You pass a law today to outlaw and censor nazi hatespeech, tomorrow the reigns of power are in the hands of an christian/islamic majority who believe as much as you do, that pro lgbtq speech is hate speech that should be banned.\n\nThe principals from which your argument stands is one that will inevitably bite you back and make life worse for everyone.", "timestamp": 1618943758 }, { "author": "Whateveridontkare", "id": "gv8gyb2", "score": 2, "text": "Well the children part is just the first part of my comment and its an analogy. I also focused on a more individual approach than a societal approach as you are doing so, this isnt a you are right or wrong I am just giving out what I think is an alternative view which is the purpose of the subreddit.\n\nWishing hate on others saying it will bite my back and make life worse like, no need to be rude, if you dont want to listen to others opinions dont post here.", "timestamp": 1618945022 } ]	[ "gv85hem", "gv85qvw", "gv88l8n" ]	[ "gv899zk", "gv8durb", "gv8gyb2" ]
CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech. There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy But these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good? --- Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it. --- So this is a bit separate from the larger point of “should we censor people” but I think the idea that debate will have a meaningful impact on things like nazism and racism is incredibly naive. When it comes to things like flat earth or qanon you can debate many of their foundational points of view because they’re based in fact. If someone thinks black people are evil there’s not really any debating that. Sure you’ll have anecdotal examples where someone turns coat but it’s an opinion not a fact. Any truly rational person isn’t joining the KKK so expecting appeals to their rational to work in a way that has a real effect is a bit silly.	Your examples tell me that censorship works. >This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. In the 1950s, Germany banned all things Nazi. Since then, Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. Even if their tactics became more subversive, that is still substantially less power than they had prior to the 1950s in Germany. Same with the South: >This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. I would note that it is widely thought that there were a significant lack of meaningful consequences for the South after the war. You don't identify any particular censorship that occurred. Even if there was censorship, that slavery hasn't resurged or another civil war occurred suggests whatever steps were taken succeeded in quashing the impetus for the war. Empirically, slavery is gone in the US and Nazis are gone from Germany. Whatever censorship was imposed is indisputably successful at preventing slavers and Nazis from regaining power. Just because people still subscribe to ideologies doesn't mean that whatever censorship you refer to didn't work. Your two main examples prove that it did. Hate speech is also protected by the 1A in the USA. The Civil Rights Act does not ban hate speech. It prevents businesses that rely on public goods from discriminating by establishing liability. Racism will exist as long as racists do, probably forever. No act of censorship has ever maintained that it would solve racism, but would provide some benefit to society, even if marginal. Instead of racists starting wars, they operate within the Constitutional democratic system. That seems like a vast improvement over slavery and war. --- > Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. That's a really low bar to hurdle. By that same metric, since the Confederacy never took over the southeast again, NOT banning Confederate flags and anything Confederacy related works just as well. Meanwhile, Neo-Nazi groups in Germany are actually on the rise despite Germany banning pretty much any mention of Nazi anything. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/943823021/with-far-right-extremism-on-the-rise-germany-investigates-its-police --- >That's a really low bar to hurdle. Why is that? The impetus for actions against hate ideologies was the acts of those who subscribe to those ideologies including complete control of the government to carry out terrible acts. Which is better: 1. Neo-Nazis being "on the rise" meaning "considered criminal entities constantly under police action" several decades after their ostensible ban. 2. Nazis controlling government and carrying out all their Nazi ideas. I think 2 is the universal answer. This "censorship" has demonstrably limited Nazis to a powerless state indefinitely where their best case scenario is being under high profile criminal action. That we've transition from "being the state" to "being policed by the state" is about the farthest removal from power we can realistically expect. Banning them in the Constitution was a major part of that.	muvrf4	CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech.	There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	Butterboi_Oooska	3	3	[ { "author": "BeatriceBernardo", "id": "gv85hem", "score": 13, "text": "> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy\n\nBut these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good?", "timestamp": 1618940363 }, { "author": "Butterboi_Oooska", "id": "gv85qvw", "score": 2, "text": "Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it.", "timestamp": 1618940470 }, { "author": "jackiemoon37", "id": "gv8hbct", "score": 10, "text": "So this is a bit separate from the larger point of “should we censor people” but I think the idea that debate will have a meaningful impact on things like nazism and racism is incredibly naive. When it comes to things like flat earth or qanon you can debate many of their foundational points of view because they’re based in fact. If someone thinks black people are evil there’s not really any debating that. Sure you’ll have anecdotal examples where someone turns coat but it’s an opinion not a fact.\n\nAny truly rational person isn’t joining the KKK so expecting appeals to their rational to work in a way that has a real effect is a bit silly.", "timestamp": 1618945170 } ]	[ { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "gv8fda5", "score": 16, "text": "Your examples tell me that censorship works.\n\n>This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win.\n\nIn the 1950s, Germany banned all things Nazi. Since then, Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. Even if their tactics became more subversive, that is still substantially less power than they had prior to the 1950s in Germany.\n\nSame with the South:\n\n>This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people.\n\nI would note that it is widely thought that there were a significant lack of meaningful consequences for the South after the war. You don't identify any particular censorship that occurred. Even if there was censorship, that slavery hasn't resurged or another civil war occurred suggests whatever steps were taken succeeded in quashing the impetus for the war.\n\nEmpirically, slavery is gone in the US and Nazis are gone from Germany. Whatever censorship was imposed is indisputably successful at preventing slavers and Nazis from regaining power. Just because people still subscribe to ideologies doesn't mean that whatever censorship you refer to didn't work. Your two main examples prove that it did.\n\nHate speech is also protected by the 1A in the USA. The Civil Rights Act does not ban hate speech. It prevents businesses that rely on public goods from discriminating by establishing liability. Racism will exist as long as racists do, probably forever. No act of censorship has ever maintained that it would solve racism, but would provide some benefit to society, even if marginal. Instead of racists starting wars, they operate within the Constitutional democratic system. That seems like a vast improvement over slavery and war.", "timestamp": 1618944380 }, { "author": "Ihateregistering6", "id": "gv91vmf", "score": 12, "text": "> Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany.\n\nThat's a really low bar to hurdle. By that same metric, since the Confederacy never took over the southeast again, NOT banning Confederate flags and anything Confederacy related works just as well.\n\nMeanwhile, Neo-Nazi groups in Germany are actually on the rise despite Germany banning pretty much any mention of Nazi anything. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/943823021/with-far-right-extremism-on-the-rise-germany-investigates-its-police", "timestamp": 1618953748 }, { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "gv92xss", "score": 2, "text": ">That's a really low bar to hurdle.\n\nWhy is that? The impetus for actions against hate ideologies was the acts of those who subscribe to those ideologies including complete control of the government to carry out terrible acts.\n\nWhich is better:\n\n1. Neo-Nazis being \"on the rise\" meaning \"considered criminal entities constantly under police action\" several decades after their ostensible ban.\n\n2. Nazis controlling government and carrying out all their Nazi ideas.\n\nI think 2 is the universal answer. This \"censorship\" has demonstrably limited Nazis to a powerless state indefinitely where their best case scenario is being under high profile criminal action.\n\nThat we've transition from \"being the state\" to \"being policed by the state\" is about the farthest removal from power we can realistically expect. Banning them in the Constitution was a major part of that.", "timestamp": 1618954187 } ]	[ "gv85hem", "gv85qvw", "gv8hbct" ]	[ "gv8fda5", "gv91vmf", "gv92xss" ]
CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech. There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy But these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good? --- Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it. --- The problem with this is that it lends them legitimacy. Take climate change debates. On one side you have a man with thirty years experience in the field, a nobel prize etc etc, on the other, this fucking wackjob polisci professor who doesn't know shit about climate. But they are on stage together. And due to the way humans think, the fact that they are there to speak at all lends legitimacy to their argument. We see this again and again in culture, from flat earth crap to trump election lies. Allowing Nazi's a platform to speak just allows them to spread their message. The idea that we can just dunk on these people and the rational argument will win out is a fallacy. Even worse, the people who spout this crap are dishonest. They play with words, toying with the idea of free speech and portraying themselves as just another ideology. What is wrong with being a white identitarian, black people are proud of their ideology why can't I be. But the second these people get power they will put the boot on your goddamn neck and stomp. Nazi fucks don't give a single solitary damn about free speech, they just pretend to because if society indulges them then they can build a following. These people fear and whine about deplatforming because it works. --- I might have to give you a !delta here. I still think that they will spread their message regardless, but there isn’t a very logical reason why they’d fear deplatforming. --- the logical reason why they'd fear deplatforming is it means a loss of future money and power. It's the oldest reason. If they have less of a megaphone, their message will spread less far. Less spread of the message equals less money in the form of sponsorships and ad revenue, and less relevance so the cycle continues downwards. Milo Yiannwhatever was a pretty large and problematic voice for years. Then twitter kicked him out, and he's barely relevant now despite trying as furiously as he can to be. His arguments were always barefaced cruelty with no base to them, and that didn't matter - all the sunlight in the world didn't stop his message. Twitter kicking him out did.	Your examples tell me that censorship works. >This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. In the 1950s, Germany banned all things Nazi. Since then, Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. Even if their tactics became more subversive, that is still substantially less power than they had prior to the 1950s in Germany. Same with the South: >This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. I would note that it is widely thought that there were a significant lack of meaningful consequences for the South after the war. You don't identify any particular censorship that occurred. Even if there was censorship, that slavery hasn't resurged or another civil war occurred suggests whatever steps were taken succeeded in quashing the impetus for the war. Empirically, slavery is gone in the US and Nazis are gone from Germany. Whatever censorship was imposed is indisputably successful at preventing slavers and Nazis from regaining power. Just because people still subscribe to ideologies doesn't mean that whatever censorship you refer to didn't work. Your two main examples prove that it did. Hate speech is also protected by the 1A in the USA. The Civil Rights Act does not ban hate speech. It prevents businesses that rely on public goods from discriminating by establishing liability. Racism will exist as long as racists do, probably forever. No act of censorship has ever maintained that it would solve racism, but would provide some benefit to society, even if marginal. Instead of racists starting wars, they operate within the Constitutional democratic system. That seems like a vast improvement over slavery and war. --- > Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. That's a really low bar to hurdle. By that same metric, since the Confederacy never took over the southeast again, NOT banning Confederate flags and anything Confederacy related works just as well. Meanwhile, Neo-Nazi groups in Germany are actually on the rise despite Germany banning pretty much any mention of Nazi anything. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/943823021/with-far-right-extremism-on-the-rise-germany-investigates-its-police --- >That's a really low bar to hurdle. Why is that? The impetus for actions against hate ideologies was the acts of those who subscribe to those ideologies including complete control of the government to carry out terrible acts. Which is better: 1. Neo-Nazis being "on the rise" meaning "considered criminal entities constantly under police action" several decades after their ostensible ban. 2. Nazis controlling government and carrying out all their Nazi ideas. I think 2 is the universal answer. This "censorship" has demonstrably limited Nazis to a powerless state indefinitely where their best case scenario is being under high profile criminal action. That we've transition from "being the state" to "being policed by the state" is about the farthest removal from power we can realistically expect. Banning them in the Constitution was a major part of that. --- Actually, I have a question - part of the Nazi strategy to gain and control power was by banning the speech of opposing parties, and preventing them from ever effectively speaking out - similar to what you argue. Since you want to ban all Nazi-related speech, then shouldn’t I have every right to ban/censor YOU for having a Nazi-related idea? --- You have whatever rights you can defend in your legal system.	muvrf4	CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech.	There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	Butterboi_Oooska	5	5	[ { "author": "BeatriceBernardo", "id": "gv85hem", "score": 13, "text": "> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy\n\nBut these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good?", "timestamp": 1618940363 }, { "author": "Butterboi_Oooska", "id": "gv85qvw", "score": 2, "text": "Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it.", "timestamp": 1618940470 }, { "author": "edwardlleandre", "id": "gv88l8n", "score": 32, "text": "The problem with this is that it lends them legitimacy.\n\nTake climate change debates. On one side you have a man with thirty years experience in the field, a nobel prize etc etc, on the other, this fucking wackjob polisci professor who doesn't know shit about climate.\n\nBut they are on stage together. And due to the way humans think, the fact that they are there to speak at all lends legitimacy to their argument.\n\nWe see this again and again in culture, from flat earth crap to trump election lies. Allowing Nazi's a platform to speak just allows them to spread their message. The idea that we can just dunk on these people and the rational argument will win out is a fallacy.\n\nEven worse, the people who spout this crap are dishonest. They play with words, toying with the idea of free speech and portraying themselves as just another ideology. What is wrong with being a white identitarian, black people are proud of their ideology why can't I be.\n\nBut the second these people get power they will put the boot on your goddamn neck and stomp. Nazi fucks don't give a single solitary damn about free speech, they just pretend to because if society indulges them then they can build a following.\n\nThese people fear and whine about deplatforming because it works.", "timestamp": 1618941627 }, { "author": "Butterboi_Oooska", "id": "gv8ne08", "score": 5, "text": "I might have to give you a !delta here. I still think that they will spread their message regardless, but there isn’t a very logical reason why they’d fear deplatforming.", "timestamp": 1618947691 }, { "author": "Armigine", "id": "gv8q19o", "score": 10, "text": "the logical reason why they'd fear deplatforming is it means a loss of future money and power. It's the oldest reason. If they have less of a megaphone, their message will spread less far. Less spread of the message equals less money in the form of sponsorships and ad revenue, and less relevance so the cycle continues downwards.\n\nMilo Yiannwhatever was a pretty large and problematic voice for years. Then twitter kicked him out, and he's barely relevant now despite trying as furiously as he can to be. His arguments were always barefaced cruelty with no base to them, and that didn't matter - all the sunlight in the world didn't stop his message. Twitter kicking him out did.", "timestamp": 1618948809 } ]	[ { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "gv8fda5", "score": 16, "text": "Your examples tell me that censorship works.\n\n>This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win.\n\nIn the 1950s, Germany banned all things Nazi. Since then, Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany. Even if their tactics became more subversive, that is still substantially less power than they had prior to the 1950s in Germany.\n\nSame with the South:\n\n>This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people.\n\nI would note that it is widely thought that there were a significant lack of meaningful consequences for the South after the war. You don't identify any particular censorship that occurred. Even if there was censorship, that slavery hasn't resurged or another civil war occurred suggests whatever steps were taken succeeded in quashing the impetus for the war.\n\nEmpirically, slavery is gone in the US and Nazis are gone from Germany. Whatever censorship was imposed is indisputably successful at preventing slavers and Nazis from regaining power. Just because people still subscribe to ideologies doesn't mean that whatever censorship you refer to didn't work. Your two main examples prove that it did.\n\nHate speech is also protected by the 1A in the USA. The Civil Rights Act does not ban hate speech. It prevents businesses that rely on public goods from discriminating by establishing liability. Racism will exist as long as racists do, probably forever. No act of censorship has ever maintained that it would solve racism, but would provide some benefit to society, even if marginal. Instead of racists starting wars, they operate within the Constitutional democratic system. That seems like a vast improvement over slavery and war.", "timestamp": 1618944380 }, { "author": "Ihateregistering6", "id": "gv91vmf", "score": 12, "text": "> Nazis have failed to re-take control in Germany.\n\nThat's a really low bar to hurdle. By that same metric, since the Confederacy never took over the southeast again, NOT banning Confederate flags and anything Confederacy related works just as well.\n\nMeanwhile, Neo-Nazi groups in Germany are actually on the rise despite Germany banning pretty much any mention of Nazi anything. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/943823021/with-far-right-extremism-on-the-rise-germany-investigates-its-police", "timestamp": 1618953748 }, { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "gv92xss", "score": 2, "text": ">That's a really low bar to hurdle.\n\nWhy is that? The impetus for actions against hate ideologies was the acts of those who subscribe to those ideologies including complete control of the government to carry out terrible acts.\n\nWhich is better:\n\n1. Neo-Nazis being \"on the rise\" meaning \"considered criminal entities constantly under police action\" several decades after their ostensible ban.\n\n2. Nazis controlling government and carrying out all their Nazi ideas.\n\nI think 2 is the universal answer. This \"censorship\" has demonstrably limited Nazis to a powerless state indefinitely where their best case scenario is being under high profile criminal action.\n\nThat we've transition from \"being the state\" to \"being policed by the state\" is about the farthest removal from power we can realistically expect. Banning them in the Constitution was a major part of that.", "timestamp": 1618954187 }, { "author": "ZorgZeFrenchGuy", "id": "gv98pnc", "score": 0, "text": "Actually, I have a question - part of the Nazi strategy to gain and control power was by banning the speech of opposing parties, and preventing them from ever effectively speaking out - similar to what you argue. \n\nSince you want to ban all Nazi-related speech, then shouldn’t I have every right to ban/censor YOU for having a Nazi-related idea?", "timestamp": 1618956682 }, { "author": "Biptoslipdi", "id": "gv9b1k9", "score": 3, "text": "You have whatever rights you can defend in your legal system.", "timestamp": 1618957727 } ]	[ "gv85hem", "gv85qvw", "gv88l8n", "gv8ne08", "gv8q19o" ]	[ "gv8fda5", "gv91vmf", "gv92xss", "gv98pnc", "gv9b1k9" ]
CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech. There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy But these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good? --- Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it. --- > Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it. This utter fascination that some people have with "debate me". No. No one is under any obligation to debate you. What happens when you have a TV show, a radio program and you bring a bleeding heart liberal and a bona fide Nazi on to "debate" issues is that you are equating them. You are presenting two sides of the issue as if there are two valid sides. There are not always two equal sides. You do not have to sit there and listen to Nazis. The "middle ground center" position between "let gays marry" and "being gay should be illegal" is let gays marry, not let 1/2 the gays marry. There's a say, no idea how true. If you have 1 Nazi at a table and 9 people sitting there listening to them, you have 10 Nazis. Having a public debate does not "damn" extremist views, it gives them a platform to spread far and wide. Whatever platform you have - if it has a national audience, that is who you are presenting this to. Most nutty extremeists would LOVE to have that kind of reach and exposure instead of rotting away in the dark. The debate for them is utterly pointless, the point isn't to win the debate - the point for them is to be on the same stage, to be treated as valid and equal and have a HUGE audience to which they can share their nutty extremist views. By debating you have already lost, that's why the Ben Shapiro's of the world are in love with getting people to debate them. By getting you to debate them, they win. You are saying "yes Ben, you have some valid ideas let's discuss them" instead what you should be saying is "this is a nut job stfu you're not coming on my nationally syndicated radio station". This applies to all kinds of views. Let's get Neil deGrasse Tyson on the TV with a flat Earther, an Anti-vaxxer and a moon landing hoaxer and have a serious chat about their views. You think that the outcome would be that Neil is retaining his usual smugness after he "wins" the debate, and presumably any articles written will say "Tyson obliterates in debate". But what you really did was give an anti-vaxxer a huge audience to speak to (some of which will immediately disgregard the smug know it all), you give credence to the moon hoaxer because if he wasn't legit he wouldn't be on TV. And all the Flat Earther's are cheering because they're being taken seriously. Don't give nut job extremists a platform. You say > I still think that they will spread their message regardless, How...? Let them do it themselves. Don't be the platform to spread it. Look at all the humourous tweets about not having to listen to Trump on twitter. If deplatforming didn't work they wouldn't whine so hard about it. They wouldn't try so hard to get you to debate them in public. If you debate nut job extremists in public, they've already won. Never wrestle with a pig in the mud. You just get dirty and he enjoys it even if he doesn't win. > I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. Can you literally imagine just how chuffed David Duke would be if CNN hosted a live debate between himself in full KKK regalia talking about the benefits of White Supremacy to the American People vs any BLM / political activist / Obama? How much validation they get simply by being on stage. Treated like an equal. Announced to the people, 'Welcome Mr. Obama and Grand Wizard Duke for this debate - your topic is how has White Supremacy advanced the American cause. Please keep it civil. Opening remarks Grand Wizard'. That is not how you kill this shit, this is how you spread this shit. No, do not put this man on national TV, let him rot away in darkness doing his own podcast no one listens to.	First, a clarifying question: Which type of censorship are you referring to? 1. Government censorship: You get fined, thrown in jail, etc..) or 2. Private censorship (Twitter gives you a warning, bans you , or you get fired from your job, etc..)? It sounds like you're referring to 1, but I don't think that's a problem right now is it? --- I would argue that having to self-censor to be able to hold a steady job (in this day and age you can lose a job where you don't face the public and you aren't the face of a company just for having an unpopular opinion) is in practice no different than government censorship. We all need a job to survive and not being able to have a decent job because of your opinions is another way of losing your freedom. Or for example, it's undeniable that social media has changed the way the world works for the foreseeable future, and losing access (including being able to participate) to the biggest platforms, ie Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/Reddit is akin to losing access to the modern public squares and free speech protects your rights to access public squares and give your opinion. Also again losing your job, your college scholarship, etc because you posted the "wrong" opinion on a social media platform, which is the way most people communicate today, is censorship that can ruin your life or at least destroy it for many years to come and again in practice is a way to lose your freedom. --- I think losing a job for being a straight up white supremacist or Nazi (as OP mentioned) is perfectly reasonable.	muvrf4	CMV: We shouldn't censor hate speech.	There are certain things that aren't protected under freedom of speech, those being things like incitement of violence, immediate threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I'm not talking about those things. Slander and stuff like that aren't ok, and to my knowledge, aren't legal. It should stay that way. I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy. I don't these things should be censored. I think that censorship of some undeniably bad political positions would force a similar thing to what prohibition or the war on drugs caused: pushing the problem into the underground and giving the public a perspective of "out of sight, out of mind". Censorship of political opinions doesn't do much to silence political positions, it just forces them to get clever with their rhetoric. This happened in Germany in the interwar period. The SPD, the party in charge of Germany at the time, banned the Nazi party after they had tried to stage an uprising that we now know as the Beer Hall Putsch. We also know that the SPD's attempts to silence the Nazis ultimately failed. Nazi influence grew in the underground, until Hitler eventually convinced Bavaria to repeal the ban on the Nazi party. Banning the party didn't suddenly make the people and their influence vanish, it just forced the Nazi's to get clever, and, instead of using blatant means, to utilize legal processes to win. This also happened after the Civil War, when the Union withdrew from the South. After Union withdrawal, Southern anti-black sentiment was still powerful and took the form of Jim Crow laws. After the social banning and the legal banning of discrimination in the form of Americans no longer accepting racist rhetoric en masse and the Civil Rights Act, racism didn't suddenly disappear. It simply got smarter. The Southern Strategy, and how Republicans won the South, was by appealing to White voters by pushing economic policies that 'just so happen' to disproportionately benefit white people and disproportionately hurt black people. Censorship doesn't work. It only pushes the problem out of sight, allowing for the public to be put at ease while other, generally harmful, political positions are learning how to sneak their rhetoric under the radar. Instead, we must take an active role in sifting through policies and politicians in order to find whether or not they're trying to sneak possibly racist rhetoric under the radar. And if we find it, we must publicly tear down their arguments and expose the rhetoric for what it is. If we publicly show exactly how the alt-right and other harmful groups sneak their rhetoric into what could be seen as common policy, we can learn better how to protect ourselves and our communities from that kind of dangerous position. An active role in the combatting of violent extremism is vital to ensure things like the rise of the Nazi party, the KKK, and the Capitol Insurrection don't happen again. Edit: I should specify I'm very willing to change my opinion on this. I simply don't see a better way to stop violent extremism without giving the government large amounts of power.	Butterboi_Oooska	3	3	[ { "author": "BeatriceBernardo", "id": "gv85hem", "score": 13, "text": "> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy\n\nBut these things are already not censored. Are you trying to say that the status quo is good?", "timestamp": 1618940363 }, { "author": "Butterboi_Oooska", "id": "gv85qvw", "score": 2, "text": "Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it.", "timestamp": 1618940470 }, { "author": "SirLoremIpsum", "id": "gvauk9h", "score": 3, "text": "> Yes, with an additional focus on publicly damning the views in a debate rather than just ignoring it.\n\nThis utter fascination that some people have with \"debate me\".\n\nNo.\n\nNo one is under any obligation to debate you. What happens when you have a TV show, a radio program and you bring a bleeding heart liberal and a bona fide Nazi on to \"debate\" issues is that you are equating them. You are presenting two sides of the issue as if there are two valid sides. \n\nThere are not always two equal sides.\n\nYou do not have to sit there and listen to Nazis. The \"middle ground center\" position between \"let gays marry\" and \"being gay should be illegal\" is let gays marry, not let 1/2 the gays marry.\n\nThere's a say, no idea how true. If you have 1 Nazi at a table and 9 people sitting there listening to them, you have 10 Nazis.\n\nHaving a public debate does not \"damn\" extremist views, it gives them a platform to spread far and wide. Whatever platform you have - if it has a national audience, that is who you are presenting this to. Most nutty extremeists would LOVE to have that kind of reach and exposure instead of rotting away in the dark. \n\nThe debate for them is utterly pointless, the point isn't to win the debate - the point for them is to be on the same stage, to be treated as valid and equal and have a HUGE audience to which they can share their nutty extremist views. By debating you have already lost, that's why the Ben Shapiro's of the world are in love with getting people to debate them. By getting you to debate them, they win. You are saying \"yes Ben, you have some valid ideas let's discuss them\" instead what you should be saying is \"this is a nut job stfu you're not coming on my nationally syndicated radio station\".\n\nThis applies to all kinds of views. Let's get Neil deGrasse Tyson on the TV with a flat Earther, an Anti-vaxxer and a moon landing hoaxer and have a serious chat about their views. \n\nYou think that the outcome would be that Neil is retaining his usual smugness after he \"wins\" the debate, and presumably any articles written will say \"Tyson obliterates in debate\". But what you really did was give an anti-vaxxer a huge audience to speak to (some of which will immediately disgregard the smug know it all), you give credence to the moon hoaxer because if he wasn't legit he wouldn't be on TV. And all the Flat Earther's are cheering because they're being taken seriously. \n\nDon't give nut job extremists a platform.\n\nYou say\n\n> I still think that they will spread their message regardless,\n\nHow...?\n\nLet them do it themselves. \n\nDon't be the platform to spread it.\n\nLook at all the humourous tweets about not having to listen to Trump on twitter.\n\nIf deplatforming didn't work they wouldn't whine so hard about it. They wouldn't try so hard to get you to debate them in public.\n\nIf you debate nut job extremists in public, they've already won.\n\nNever wrestle with a pig in the mud. You just get dirty and he enjoys it even if he doesn't win.\n\n> I'm talking about bigotry and genuinely damaging political views, like Nazism and white supremacy.\n\nCan you literally imagine just how chuffed David Duke would be if CNN hosted a live debate between himself in full KKK regalia talking about the benefits of White Supremacy to the American People vs any BLM / political activist / Obama?\n\nHow much validation they get simply by being on stage. Treated like an equal. Announced to the people, 'Welcome Mr. Obama and Grand Wizard Duke for this debate - your topic is how has White Supremacy advanced the American cause. Please keep it civil. Opening remarks Grand Wizard'.\n\nThat is not how you kill this shit, this is how you spread this shit.\n\nNo, do not put this man on national TV, let him rot away in darkness doing his own podcast no one listens to.", "timestamp": 1618991578 } ]	[ { "author": "carneylansford", "id": "gv892bf", "score": 51, "text": "First, a clarifying question: Which type of censorship are you referring to? \n\n\n1. Government censorship: You get fined, thrown in jail, etc..) or \n2. Private censorship (Twitter gives you a warning, bans you , or you get fired from your job, etc..)? \n\nIt sounds like you're referring to 1, but I don't think that's a problem right now is it?", "timestamp": 1618941821 }, { "author": "Crazy4Swift", "id": "gv95zg8", "score": 3, "text": "I would argue that having to self-censor to be able to hold a steady job (in this day and age you can lose a job where you don't face the public and you aren't the face of a company just for having an unpopular opinion) is in practice no different than government censorship. We all need a job to survive and not being able to have a decent job because of your opinions is another way of losing your freedom. \n \nOr for example, it's undeniable that social media has changed the way the world works for the foreseeable future, and losing access (including being able to participate) to the biggest platforms, ie Twitter/Instagram/Facebook/Reddit is akin to losing access to the modern public squares and free speech protects your rights to access public squares and give your opinion. \n \nAlso again losing your job, your college scholarship, etc because you posted the \"wrong\" opinion on a social media platform, which is the way most people communicate today, is censorship that can ruin your life or at least destroy it for many years to come and again in practice is a way to lose your freedom.", "timestamp": 1618955489 }, { "author": "brawnelamia_", "id": "gv99s3x", "score": 24, "text": "I think losing a job for being a straight up white supremacist or Nazi (as OP mentioned) is perfectly reasonable.", "timestamp": 1618957157 } ]	[ "gv85hem", "gv85qvw", "gvauk9h" ]	[ "gv892bf", "gv95zg8", "gv99s3x" ]
CMV: China is #Winning It appears as if China is outcompeting the United States. China is sitting on reserves and reserves of American wealth and they have a positive trade deficit. I really haven't heard a good refutation of how their system or scheme or strategy is faulty. Only ad hominem attacks. "They kill girl babies" and "they repress journalism / free speech" Edited in: I added in this part about human rights abuses, so this thread would not go off topic. It's how conversations go irl, and I wanted to steer clear of it and focus on the economics of it. I don't condone it, and I heard that the policy was reversed. Strategy is pretty simple: 1. Steal American innovations (take value from American freedoms) 2. Study Capitalistic ways in American universities 3. Do capitalism more efficiently w/ coordinated technocratic planning and labor 4. Sell that shit back to Westerners, at cheaper prices and quick obsolescence, so American wealth is redistributed (read: drained) 5. Turn around and invest that dough (like the Marshall plan) in other developing nations to become richer Is this because of the agility and foresight of their economic system? Am I missing something? Please explain.	>"They kill girl babies Those baby girls aren't 'winning' though. --- Neither were the Native Americans. that's why I said the logic was faulty. And the irl arguments were weak. --- So what do you mean by China exactly? The government? The wealthy Chinese? Chinese citizens?	> China is sitting on reserves and reserves of American wealth and they have a positive trade deficit. And that means that our purchases our extremely important. They need our dollars. We don't need their cheap goods. --- Free markets like cheap goods. And capitalist society values us by how much we have, unfortunately. And it would seem that we keep spending more than we have 😅. --- And you realize that there are several other countries we could buy them from. To name a few: Vietnam Taiwan South Korea Japan India	86yhzl	CMV: China is #Winning	It appears as if China is outcompeting the United States. China is sitting on reserves and reserves of American wealth and they have a positive trade deficit. I really haven't heard a good refutation of how their system or scheme or strategy is faulty. Only ad hominem attacks. "They kill girl babies" and "they repress journalism / free speech" Edited in: I added in this part about human rights abuses, so this thread would not go off topic. It's how conversations go irl, and I wanted to steer clear of it and focus on the economics of it. I don't condone it, and I heard that the policy was reversed. Strategy is pretty simple: 1. Steal American innovations (take value from American freedoms) 2. Study Capitalistic ways in American universities 3. Do capitalism more efficiently w/ coordinated technocratic planning and labor 4. Sell that shit back to Westerners, at cheaper prices and quick obsolescence, so American wealth is redistributed (read: drained) 5. Turn around and invest that dough (like the Marshall plan) in other developing nations to become richer Is this because of the agility and foresight of their economic system? Am I missing something? Please explain.	rowdyrider25	3	3	[ { "author": "IbanezDavy", "id": "dw8t7xy", "score": 4, "text": ">\"They kill girl babies\n\nThose baby girls aren't 'winning' though. ", "timestamp": 1521951089 }, { "author": "rowdyrider25", "id": "dw8ugb8", "score": 3, "text": "Neither were the Native Americans. that's why I said the logic was faulty. And the irl arguments were weak. ", "timestamp": 1521952830 }, { "author": "DeleteriousEuphuism", "id": "dw8ukgn", "score": 1, "text": "So what do you mean by China exactly? The government? The wealthy Chinese? Chinese citizens?", "timestamp": 1521953004 } ]	[ { "author": "jfarrar19", "id": "dw8t8an", "score": 2, "text": "> China is sitting on reserves and reserves of American wealth and they have a positive trade deficit.\n\nAnd that means that our purchases our extremely important. They need our dollars. We don't need their cheap goods.", "timestamp": 1521951103 }, { "author": "rowdyrider25", "id": "dw8uaum", "score": 2, "text": "Free markets like cheap goods. And capitalist society values us by how much we have, unfortunately. And it would seem that we keep spending more than we have 😅. \n\n", "timestamp": 1521952613 }, { "author": "jfarrar19", "id": "dw8uer8", "score": 2, "text": "And you realize that there are several other countries we could buy them from. To name a few:\n\nVietnam\n\nTaiwan\n\nSouth Korea\n\nJapan\n\nIndia", "timestamp": 1521952769 } ]	[ "dw8t7xy", "dw8ugb8", "dw8ukgn" ]	[ "dw8t8an", "dw8uaum", "dw8uer8" ]
CMV: With the rise of automation and AI, there will eventually come a time where a universal basic income is necessary. Throughout human history, advances in technology have allowed workers to be more productive. For instance, the steel plow allowed a farmer to farm much more land and the factory allowed a chain of workers to produce much more than they ever could on their own. In relatively recent history, many of these advances have caused job loss in their fields. The combine harvester, fertilizer, and many other staples of the modern farm have made farmers less than 2% of the population in the US, down from over half a century ago. Improvements in shipping have allowed many factory jobs to be shipped overseas where labor is cheaper, while at home, domestic factory jobs that remained were replaced by robotic assembly lines that are safer and much faster than hiring actual workers. (Side note, I will be using the 5-sector model of the economy, described [here](https://www.thoughtco.com/sectors-of-the-economy-1435795), because it represents what jobs in the future are likely to be). Thankfully, low-skill workers have always been able to find jobs. When the Primary sector decayed, they moved to manufacturing jobs. When the Secondary sector moved overseas, they moved to service jobs. Because of human adaptability, there have always been jobs that are easier for a low-skill human to work than a machine. However, with the rise of information technologies, many jobs that employ millions of people will soon be at risk. [Retail clerks, for instance, are already growing obsolete.](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store) Many other jobs that can be handled by low-skill workers will be quick to follow. [Fast food workers](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/07/meet-flippy-a-burger-grilling-robot-from-miso-robotics-and-caliburger/), [construction workers](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/index.html), [taxi drivers](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14687346/uber-self-driving-car-arizona-pilot-ducey-california), and many more may soon find themselves out of work with no place to go. Most of the new and rising job markets, such as in web design, data analysis, and medicine require more than just a high school diploma. While there are still low-skill jobs that would be tough to automate, there will be a shortage of jobs that don't require a college degree. While many of the problems I mentioned so far can be solved with more college education, it gets much worse when you throw machine learning into the mix. Occupations such as administrative support, accounting and other financial services, data analysis, doctors, and even middle management can be automated through machine learning algorithms already in the works. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that even Quaternary sector jobs could be automated by AI. Given the rate at which AI is advancing, it's likely that artificial intelligence will replace humans in every role that it can because it's cheaper, faster, and more effective at doing the same job. This brings us to the universal basic income. Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone. However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around. Fully automated farms and factories could get products to consumers with almost no human intervention while AIs and robots could provide people with nearly every service they could ever need. However, to pay for this abundance of services, people need money. With only a small fraction of the population in the workforce, most people would not be earning the money they'd need to pay for these services. This doesn't make any sense. If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them. A universal basic income would be the only thing short of full communism that could make this possible. Unfortunately, this economic system would be almost communist in nature. Is there anything else that can be done? If so, Change My View! (Of course, none of this would matter if a cataclysm or dystopia happens and everyone is fighting for their survival. Let's just assume we make it through the next century with the peace and prosperity we have known and we adapt to or solve Climate Change.) EDIT: This been up for about 4 hours, and while it's been good talking to you all, it's past midnight for me. Many of you have made some good points and will probably continue to do so for several more hours, so I will respond to them once I wake up in the morning. EDIT 2: Sorry for the inactivity, I've been at an amusement park all day and it's hard to debate on my phone. I will read through your comments and respond from 8pm-12am EDT. EDIT 3: After reading through the posts, I have come across a lot of good ideas. Many of you proposed alternative solutions to a UBI. There were also some plausible scenarios given where automation simply isn't worth the economic collapse, so there aren't enough poor people for a UBI to be necessary. My favorite was the idea that humans should merge themselves with computers rather than let AIs run rampant. Ironically, Elon Musk (who thinks that a UBI will be necessary) [actually has a venture devoted towards merging mind and machine.](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	>Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone......However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around.........If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need Sounds like a post-scarcity society. Why have any income at all? Why have money? --- Money will still be a factor because corporate capitalism will drive automation. The reason companies will want to automate their workforce is because it will allow them to make a bigger profit. With more automation, the businessmen at the top will have, in the words of Elon Musk, ["An almost unimaginable amount of money"](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2), while the workers who were laid off would be left with next to nothing. Naturally, the rich and powerful would not want to abandon the source of their power, so money would persist and they would still want to sell their products for money. --- Riddle me this: If corporations automate to make more profits, but collectively reduce people's ability to pay by creating an underclass incapable of buying their goods, why would they continue to automate when it becomes unprofitable to do so? Remember, you can't sell to a person who can't afford to buy. Automation generates higher profit by selling more things at a lower price, if you can't sell more things even at the lower price or if the amount of money you lose from the lower price is greater than the amount you gain from selling more then automating loses your money. So, in a world where the fired masses can't find new employment there's a natural limit that will prevent the automation of all jobs. But wait, you say, but automation is always cheaper (it's actually not and there's no reason to believe that such a universal statement could ever be true) so the lower cost of a robot over time compared to a human would lead to everything being automated. But, not so, says I. You see, the price you can get at market is determined by the quantity you can sell, so even if you can make more at the same price you can't sell more. So, you just spent a ton of money to automate a process that doesn't really make you any more money, but it might reduce the sale price of the good a great deal more if you do that in order to tempt enough people to buy... or you could end up idling the plant or closing production elsewhere. Either way the company doesn't really benefit from that move. Really, the companies that can't see a big increase in sales at lower prices will simply not bother, and more of the robots and AI will be shunted to new industry where "getting to scale" quickly is of vital importance, and people tend to value choice so having the option of dealing with a human at some point might be all that people need to have jobs indefinitely. But, if we have a situation where there are more than enough goods and services to go around then economics is a waste of everyone's time (according to economists) and the impetus to maintain private property, corporations, and rationing mechanisms (like money) would functionally vanish. If anyone can go to a Martian Spa at any time no problem, and there's more than enough food to feed everyone then, then why would anyone accept the notion that some people should go hungry or not hop a shuttle to Mars because... reasons? Like, it's actively a bad thing for the Martian Spa to force artificial scarcity and forcing people to starve unnecessarily is morally repugnant to so many people that it's unlikely that a handful of wealthy businessmen would want to or be able to stop people from just ignoring outdated and meaningless things like money.	> If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them. Isn't that the solution right there? If there is an abundance of something, you don't need to buy it (ie exchange for money) since it would be so common it would be free. (The effective cost of the item would be zero) Since you would get everything (or the really important things) for free, you don't need money to survive and therefore don't need universal income. --- The only way society will ever reach this point is through capitalism, which won't want to relinquish its grip on power. Corporations would control these services, and if there's anything that modern capitalism will tell you, it's that companies won't give away even something so simple as bottled water for free. --- > The only way society will ever reach this point is through capitalism, which won't want to relinquish its grip on power. so one must take it. the idea, that when there is abundance of everything - labor, goods,what have you - you dont need any economy model anymore.	6qkn55	CMV: With the rise of automation and AI, there will eventually come a time where a universal basic income is necessary.	Throughout human history, advances in technology have allowed workers to be more productive. For instance, the steel plow allowed a farmer to farm much more land and the factory allowed a chain of workers to produce much more than they ever could on their own. In relatively recent history, many of these advances have caused job loss in their fields. The combine harvester, fertilizer, and many other staples of the modern farm have made farmers less than 2% of the population in the US, down from over half a century ago. Improvements in shipping have allowed many factory jobs to be shipped overseas where labor is cheaper, while at home, domestic factory jobs that remained were replaced by robotic assembly lines that are safer and much faster than hiring actual workers. (Side note, I will be using the 5-sector model of the economy, described [here](https://www.thoughtco.com/sectors-of-the-economy-1435795), because it represents what jobs in the future are likely to be). Thankfully, low-skill workers have always been able to find jobs. When the Primary sector decayed, they moved to manufacturing jobs. When the Secondary sector moved overseas, they moved to service jobs. Because of human adaptability, there have always been jobs that are easier for a low-skill human to work than a machine. However, with the rise of information technologies, many jobs that employ millions of people will soon be at risk. [Retail clerks, for instance, are already growing obsolete.](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store) Many other jobs that can be handled by low-skill workers will be quick to follow. [Fast food workers](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/07/meet-flippy-a-burger-grilling-robot-from-miso-robotics-and-caliburger/), [construction workers](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/index.html), [taxi drivers](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14687346/uber-self-driving-car-arizona-pilot-ducey-california), and many more may soon find themselves out of work with no place to go. Most of the new and rising job markets, such as in web design, data analysis, and medicine require more than just a high school diploma. While there are still low-skill jobs that would be tough to automate, there will be a shortage of jobs that don't require a college degree. While many of the problems I mentioned so far can be solved with more college education, it gets much worse when you throw machine learning into the mix. Occupations such as administrative support, accounting and other financial services, data analysis, doctors, and even middle management can be automated through machine learning algorithms already in the works. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that even Quaternary sector jobs could be automated by AI. Given the rate at which AI is advancing, it's likely that artificial intelligence will replace humans in every role that it can because it's cheaper, faster, and more effective at doing the same job. This brings us to the universal basic income. Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone. However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around. Fully automated farms and factories could get products to consumers with almost no human intervention while AIs and robots could provide people with nearly every service they could ever need. However, to pay for this abundance of services, people need money. With only a small fraction of the population in the workforce, most people would not be earning the money they'd need to pay for these services. This doesn't make any sense. If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them. A universal basic income would be the only thing short of full communism that could make this possible. Unfortunately, this economic system would be almost communist in nature. Is there anything else that can be done? If so, Change My View! (Of course, none of this would matter if a cataclysm or dystopia happens and everyone is fighting for their survival. Let's just assume we make it through the next century with the peace and prosperity we have known and we adapt to or solve Climate Change.) EDIT: This been up for about 4 hours, and while it's been good talking to you all, it's past midnight for me. Many of you have made some good points and will probably continue to do so for several more hours, so I will respond to them once I wake up in the morning. EDIT 2: Sorry for the inactivity, I've been at an amusement park all day and it's hard to debate on my phone. I will read through your comments and respond from 8pm-12am EDT. EDIT 3: After reading through the posts, I have come across a lot of good ideas. Many of you proposed alternative solutions to a UBI. There were also some plausible scenarios given where automation simply isn't worth the economic collapse, so there aren't enough poor people for a UBI to be necessary. My favorite was the idea that humans should merge themselves with computers rather than let AIs run rampant. Ironically, Elon Musk (who thinks that a UBI will be necessary) [actually has a venture devoted towards merging mind and machine.](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	TechnostarBTD5	3	3	[ { "author": "incruente", "id": "dkxyyzc", "score": 7, "text": ">Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone......However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around.........If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need\n\nSounds like a post-scarcity society. Why have any income at all? Why have money?", "timestamp": 1501456975 }, { "author": "TechnostarBTD5", "id": "dkxzivv", "score": 6, "text": "Money will still be a factor because corporate capitalism will drive automation. The reason companies will want to automate their workforce is because it will allow them to make a bigger profit. With more automation, the businessmen at the top will have, in the words of Elon Musk, [\"An almost unimaginable amount of money\"](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2), while the workers who were laid off would be left with next to nothing. Naturally, the rich and powerful would not want to abandon the source of their power, so money would persist and they would still want to sell their products for money.", "timestamp": 1501457799 }, { "author": "A_Soporific", "id": "dkyedds", "score": 10, "text": "Riddle me this:\n\nIf corporations automate to make more profits, but collectively reduce people's ability to pay by creating an underclass incapable of buying their goods, why would they continue to automate when it becomes unprofitable to do so?\n\nRemember, you can't sell to a person who can't afford to buy. Automation generates higher profit by selling more things at a lower price, if you can't sell more things even at the lower price or if the amount of money you lose from the lower price is greater than the amount you gain from selling more then automating loses your money. So, in a world where the fired masses can't find new employment there's a natural limit that will prevent the automation of all jobs.\n\nBut wait, you say, but automation is always cheaper (it's actually not and there's no reason to believe that such a universal statement could ever be true) so the lower cost of a robot over time compared to a human would lead to everything being automated. But, not so, says I. You see, the price you can get at market is determined by the quantity you can sell, so even if you can make more at the same price you can't sell more. So, you just spent a ton of money to automate a process that doesn't really make you any more money, but it might reduce the sale price of the good a great deal more if you do that in order to tempt enough people to buy... or you could end up idling the plant or closing production elsewhere. Either way the company doesn't really benefit from that move. \n\nReally, the companies that can't see a big increase in sales at lower prices will simply not bother, and more of the robots and AI will be shunted to new industry where \"getting to scale\" quickly is of vital importance, and people tend to value choice so having the option of dealing with a human at some point might be all that people need to have jobs indefinitely.\n\nBut, if we have a situation where there are more than enough goods and services to go around then economics is a waste of everyone's time (according to economists) and the impetus to maintain private property, corporations, and rationing mechanisms (like money) would functionally vanish. If anyone can go to a Martian Spa at any time no problem, and there's more than enough food to feed everyone then, then why would anyone accept the notion that some people should go hungry or not hop a shuttle to Mars because... reasons? Like, it's actively a bad thing for the Martian Spa to force artificial scarcity and forcing people to starve unnecessarily is morally repugnant to so many people that it's unlikely that a handful of wealthy businessmen would want to or be able to stop people from just ignoring outdated and meaningless things like money.", "timestamp": 1501480870 } ]	[ { "author": "caw81", "id": "dkxzcg9", "score": 32, "text": "> If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them.\n\nIsn't that the solution right there? If there is an abundance of something, you don't need to buy it (ie exchange for money) since it would be so common it would be free. (The effective cost of the item would be zero) Since you would get everything (or the really important things) for free, you don't need money to survive and therefore don't need universal income.", "timestamp": 1501457529 }, { "author": "TechnostarBTD5", "id": "dkxzvyl", "score": 26, "text": "The only way society will ever reach this point is through capitalism, which won't want to relinquish its grip on power. Corporations would control these services, and if there's anything that modern capitalism will tell you, it's that companies won't give away even something so simple as bottled water for free. ", "timestamp": 1501458343 }, { "author": "frightful_hairy_fly", "id": "dky0i59", "score": 2, "text": "> The only way society will ever reach this point is through capitalism, which won't want to relinquish its grip on power.\n\nso one must take it.\n\nthe idea, that when there is abundance of everything - labor, goods,what have you - you dont need any economy model anymore. ", "timestamp": 1501459262 } ]	[ "dkxyyzc", "dkxzivv", "dkyedds" ]	[ "dkxzcg9", "dkxzvyl", "dky0i59" ]
CMV: With the rise of automation and AI, there will eventually come a time where a universal basic income is necessary. Throughout human history, advances in technology have allowed workers to be more productive. For instance, the steel plow allowed a farmer to farm much more land and the factory allowed a chain of workers to produce much more than they ever could on their own. In relatively recent history, many of these advances have caused job loss in their fields. The combine harvester, fertilizer, and many other staples of the modern farm have made farmers less than 2% of the population in the US, down from over half a century ago. Improvements in shipping have allowed many factory jobs to be shipped overseas where labor is cheaper, while at home, domestic factory jobs that remained were replaced by robotic assembly lines that are safer and much faster than hiring actual workers. (Side note, I will be using the 5-sector model of the economy, described [here](https://www.thoughtco.com/sectors-of-the-economy-1435795), because it represents what jobs in the future are likely to be). Thankfully, low-skill workers have always been able to find jobs. When the Primary sector decayed, they moved to manufacturing jobs. When the Secondary sector moved overseas, they moved to service jobs. Because of human adaptability, there have always been jobs that are easier for a low-skill human to work than a machine. However, with the rise of information technologies, many jobs that employ millions of people will soon be at risk. [Retail clerks, for instance, are already growing obsolete.](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store) Many other jobs that can be handled by low-skill workers will be quick to follow. [Fast food workers](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/07/meet-flippy-a-burger-grilling-robot-from-miso-robotics-and-caliburger/), [construction workers](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/index.html), [taxi drivers](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14687346/uber-self-driving-car-arizona-pilot-ducey-california), and many more may soon find themselves out of work with no place to go. Most of the new and rising job markets, such as in web design, data analysis, and medicine require more than just a high school diploma. While there are still low-skill jobs that would be tough to automate, there will be a shortage of jobs that don't require a college degree. While many of the problems I mentioned so far can be solved with more college education, it gets much worse when you throw machine learning into the mix. Occupations such as administrative support, accounting and other financial services, data analysis, doctors, and even middle management can be automated through machine learning algorithms already in the works. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that even Quaternary sector jobs could be automated by AI. Given the rate at which AI is advancing, it's likely that artificial intelligence will replace humans in every role that it can because it's cheaper, faster, and more effective at doing the same job. This brings us to the universal basic income. Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone. However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around. Fully automated farms and factories could get products to consumers with almost no human intervention while AIs and robots could provide people with nearly every service they could ever need. However, to pay for this abundance of services, people need money. With only a small fraction of the population in the workforce, most people would not be earning the money they'd need to pay for these services. This doesn't make any sense. If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them. A universal basic income would be the only thing short of full communism that could make this possible. Unfortunately, this economic system would be almost communist in nature. Is there anything else that can be done? If so, Change My View! (Of course, none of this would matter if a cataclysm or dystopia happens and everyone is fighting for their survival. Let's just assume we make it through the next century with the peace and prosperity we have known and we adapt to or solve Climate Change.) EDIT: This been up for about 4 hours, and while it's been good talking to you all, it's past midnight for me. Many of you have made some good points and will probably continue to do so for several more hours, so I will respond to them once I wake up in the morning. EDIT 2: Sorry for the inactivity, I've been at an amusement park all day and it's hard to debate on my phone. I will read through your comments and respond from 8pm-12am EDT. EDIT 3: After reading through the posts, I have come across a lot of good ideas. Many of you proposed alternative solutions to a UBI. There were also some plausible scenarios given where automation simply isn't worth the economic collapse, so there aren't enough poor people for a UBI to be necessary. My favorite was the idea that humans should merge themselves with computers rather than let AIs run rampant. Ironically, Elon Musk (who thinks that a UBI will be necessary) [actually has a venture devoted towards merging mind and machine.](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	AI takes over peoples' jobs because robots are cheaper. Cheaper production of equally good goods means a cheaper end cost. The cost of living will decrease as AI takes more of our jobs. The solution may be to decrease the length of the traditional workweek over time so that most people have jobs. --- > The cost of living will decrease as AI takes more of our jobs. The solution may be to decrease the length of the traditional workweek That will never happen if capitalism is still alive. --- If there is not enough work to be done (that can't be done more cheaply by a machine) the only question is whether that means people working less, or less people working. People work less: Companies that want to sell their product are simply going to have to sell it for less (work not necessarily $) or people simply won't be able to buy it. No matter how super awesome my product is, I can't sell it for more than anyone has. Less people working: The majority will not willingly abide a system where goods are practically free to produce, but that same majority can't access it, so capitalism (or at least true capitalism on the traditional scale) ends in only a few ways: 1. The people insist that even those who do not work get some basic standard of living for free. 2. Everyone "owns" some share of the work done by robots. (Similar to #1, but sounds better.) 3. The people's constant attempts at rebellion are consistently crushed by the robotic armies owned by the wealthy. (Which would eventually lead to the non wealthy dying out eventually turning into #2.) 4. Those that don't own robots split off into economically separate communities, where they do things the old fashioned way. (Basically #2 for some people, with #1 provided as a one time installment for the rest. So really, the reduced cost of living (and hours worked) is the only system where capitalism in the normal meaning even makes sense (assuming this world where we have abundance, but most people are useless). If you are saying therefore that traditional capitalism is unlikely to be compatible with this hypothetical world, I agree. If you are saying however that capitalism can exist without "the cost of living decreasing... and decreasing the length of the workweek" I disagree. Please let me know if there's some scenario I've overlooked.	>Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone......However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around.........If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need Sounds like a post-scarcity society. Why have any income at all? Why have money? --- Money will still be a factor because corporate capitalism will drive automation. The reason companies will want to automate their workforce is because it will allow them to make a bigger profit. With more automation, the businessmen at the top will have, in the words of Elon Musk, ["An almost unimaginable amount of money"](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2), while the workers who were laid off would be left with next to nothing. Naturally, the rich and powerful would not want to abandon the source of their power, so money would persist and they would still want to sell their products for money. --- So the rich and powerful will hold enough sway to keep money existing, despite there being no real reason, but not so much as to prevent a universal basic income from existing?	6qkn55	CMV: With the rise of automation and AI, there will eventually come a time where a universal basic income is necessary.	Throughout human history, advances in technology have allowed workers to be more productive. For instance, the steel plow allowed a farmer to farm much more land and the factory allowed a chain of workers to produce much more than they ever could on their own. In relatively recent history, many of these advances have caused job loss in their fields. The combine harvester, fertilizer, and many other staples of the modern farm have made farmers less than 2% of the population in the US, down from over half a century ago. Improvements in shipping have allowed many factory jobs to be shipped overseas where labor is cheaper, while at home, domestic factory jobs that remained were replaced by robotic assembly lines that are safer and much faster than hiring actual workers. (Side note, I will be using the 5-sector model of the economy, described [here](https://www.thoughtco.com/sectors-of-the-economy-1435795), because it represents what jobs in the future are likely to be). Thankfully, low-skill workers have always been able to find jobs. When the Primary sector decayed, they moved to manufacturing jobs. When the Secondary sector moved overseas, they moved to service jobs. Because of human adaptability, there have always been jobs that are easier for a low-skill human to work than a machine. However, with the rise of information technologies, many jobs that employ millions of people will soon be at risk. [Retail clerks, for instance, are already growing obsolete.](https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store) Many other jobs that can be handled by low-skill workers will be quick to follow. [Fast food workers](https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/07/meet-flippy-a-burger-grilling-robot-from-miso-robotics-and-caliburger/), [construction workers](http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/technology/3d-printed-building-mit/index.html), [taxi drivers](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/21/14687346/uber-self-driving-car-arizona-pilot-ducey-california), and many more may soon find themselves out of work with no place to go. Most of the new and rising job markets, such as in web design, data analysis, and medicine require more than just a high school diploma. While there are still low-skill jobs that would be tough to automate, there will be a shortage of jobs that don't require a college degree. While many of the problems I mentioned so far can be solved with more college education, it gets much worse when you throw machine learning into the mix. Occupations such as administrative support, accounting and other financial services, data analysis, doctors, and even middle management can be automated through machine learning algorithms already in the works. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that even Quaternary sector jobs could be automated by AI. Given the rate at which AI is advancing, it's likely that artificial intelligence will replace humans in every role that it can because it's cheaper, faster, and more effective at doing the same job. This brings us to the universal basic income. Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone. However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around. Fully automated farms and factories could get products to consumers with almost no human intervention while AIs and robots could provide people with nearly every service they could ever need. However, to pay for this abundance of services, people need money. With only a small fraction of the population in the workforce, most people would not be earning the money they'd need to pay for these services. This doesn't make any sense. If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need, then everyone should be able to buy them. A universal basic income would be the only thing short of full communism that could make this possible. Unfortunately, this economic system would be almost communist in nature. Is there anything else that can be done? If so, Change My View! (Of course, none of this would matter if a cataclysm or dystopia happens and everyone is fighting for their survival. Let's just assume we make it through the next century with the peace and prosperity we have known and we adapt to or solve Climate Change.) EDIT: This been up for about 4 hours, and while it's been good talking to you all, it's past midnight for me. Many of you have made some good points and will probably continue to do so for several more hours, so I will respond to them once I wake up in the morning. EDIT 2: Sorry for the inactivity, I've been at an amusement park all day and it's hard to debate on my phone. I will read through your comments and respond from 8pm-12am EDT. EDIT 3: After reading through the posts, I have come across a lot of good ideas. Many of you proposed alternative solutions to a UBI. There were also some plausible scenarios given where automation simply isn't worth the economic collapse, so there aren't enough poor people for a UBI to be necessary. My favorite was the idea that humans should merge themselves with computers rather than let AIs run rampant. Ironically, Elon Musk (who thinks that a UBI will be necessary) [actually has a venture devoted towards merging mind and machine.](https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	TechnostarBTD5	3	3	[ { "author": "stevenjo28", "id": "dky07sn", "score": 196, "text": "AI takes over peoples' jobs because robots are cheaper. Cheaper production of equally good goods means a cheaper end cost. The cost of living will decrease as AI takes more of our jobs. The solution may be to decrease the length of the traditional workweek over time so that most people have jobs.", "timestamp": 1501458832 }, { "author": "KingMarshmalo", "id": "dkyc4qe", "score": 13, "text": "> The cost of living will decrease as AI takes more of our jobs. The solution may be to decrease the length of the traditional workweek \n\nThat will never happen if capitalism is still alive. ", "timestamp": 1501476543 }, { "author": "Cultist_O", "id": "dkyl4pu", "score": 3, "text": "If there is not enough work to be done (that can't be done more cheaply by a machine) the only question is whether that means people working less, or less people working. \n\nPeople work less: Companies that want to sell their product are simply going to have to sell it for less (work not necessarily $) or people simply won't be able to buy it. No matter how super awesome my product is, I can't sell it for more than anyone has.\n\nLess people working: The majority will not willingly abide a system where goods are practically free to produce, but that same majority can't access it, so capitalism (or at least true capitalism on the traditional scale) ends in only a few ways:\n\n1. The people insist that even those who do not work get some basic standard of living for free.\n2. Everyone \"owns\" some share of the work done by robots. (Similar to #1, but sounds better.)\n3. The people's constant attempts at rebellion are consistently crushed by the robotic armies owned by the wealthy. (Which would eventually lead to the non wealthy dying out eventually turning into #2.)\n4. Those that don't own robots split off into economically separate communities, where they do things the old fashioned way. (Basically #2 for some people, with #1 provided as a one time installment for the rest.\n\nSo really, the reduced cost of living (and hours worked) is the only system where capitalism in the normal meaning even makes sense (assuming this world where we have abundance, but most people are useless). \n\nIf you are saying therefore that traditional capitalism is unlikely to be compatible with this hypothetical world, I agree. If you are saying however that capitalism can exist without \"the cost of living decreasing... and decreasing the length of the workweek\" I disagree.\n\nPlease let me know if there's some scenario I've overlooked.", "timestamp": 1501498659 } ]	[ { "author": "incruente", "id": "dkxyyzc", "score": 7, "text": ">Aside from service jobs that require human-to-human interaction, human creativity, or moral judgment and Quinary-sector jobs (I sincerely hope humans would not let AIs replace CEOs or politicians), there would be few jobs left for humans to fill. With a growing population, it's likely that there won't be enough jobs for everyone......However, there would be way more than enough goods and services to go around.........If there are more goods and services to go around than humanity could ever need\n\nSounds like a post-scarcity society. Why have any income at all? Why have money?", "timestamp": 1501456975 }, { "author": "TechnostarBTD5", "id": "dkxzivv", "score": 6, "text": "Money will still be a factor because corporate capitalism will drive automation. The reason companies will want to automate their workforce is because it will allow them to make a bigger profit. With more automation, the businessmen at the top will have, in the words of Elon Musk, [\"An almost unimaginable amount of money\"](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-universal-basic-income-2017-2), while the workers who were laid off would be left with next to nothing. Naturally, the rich and powerful would not want to abandon the source of their power, so money would persist and they would still want to sell their products for money.", "timestamp": 1501457799 }, { "author": "incruente", "id": "dky00ok", "score": 4, "text": "So the rich and powerful will hold enough sway to keep money existing, despite there being no real reason, but not so much as to prevent a universal basic income from existing?", "timestamp": 1501458541 } ]	[ "dky07sn", "dkyc4qe", "dkyl4pu" ]	[ "dkxyyzc", "dkxzivv", "dky00ok" ]
CMV: Insurance isn't worth it. Ok so I don't really see the point in insurance. It seems a bit like a ripoff to me. Here's why: Insurance takes your money, which you may never get back. So when you get insurance for something, you pay a company per month/year/whatever to "insure" something, which means that if there is a crisis or the insured object is damaged, they will pay for it to be fixed or replaced. This would be fine and dandy, but this doesn't happen a lot. I'd reckon that a lot of the time, these things don't happen. So you don't see a return on your investment. Other times, when you do need payment, the insurance company decides whether it wants to pay out or not. For example, if I were to purchase insurance on my phone, and I dropped it in water, then depending on the terms of the insurance I might not see my investment returned in the form of a fixed or new phone. Another reason why I believe that insurance isn't worth it is that a savings account would do the same things, but better. If you paid the money that would go into insurance into a savings account, you would be able to take that money out when you need it, on your own terms. That means that the problem of no return on the investment doesn't apply. In the case of you not having enough in your account, you could always take out a loan and pay it back with the money you would put into the account anyways. Also you would be able to get all the money back if you didn't require the savings any more. For example if I was putting money in an account for my pet but then my pet died, I would be able to use all that money for another purpose. Compare that to the case where I took out insurance, I would lose all the money. I think I am missing something that is vital to why insurance works. Insurance is even required by law in some cases, like car insurance in the UK for example. CMV!	Insurance is here because a saving account may never get big enough. And making it legal is for your protection. Say you were to get hit and were hospitalized and needed a new car. Virtually no common person will have enough to pay for everything you need. This would leave you out of luck because you can’t get blood from a rock. --- Why not take out a loan then? Surely paying back that loan would be pretty much the same as paying for the insurance. And as far as I know, insurance won't even cover all of the costs of the accident. --- No bank will give you a loan for that. Odds are you _already_ have a loan out for the car, so they are not going to give you another loan to get the car fixed.	Insurance is useful when the potential damages go far beyond what you can afford to pay. For instance, my father had ample health insurance and was in a car accident in his 50s. He broke all of his ribs, punctured a lung, and sustained a brain injury. Hospital bills would have been in the millions had he not been insured. We would have had to make some very hard decisions (including taking him off life support in the first month) if we hadn't had insurance. So to me, it's all about liquidity. If the potential costs of something are so high that I wouldn't be able to pay for it, then insurance is worth thinking about. --- !delta. That is something that you wouldn't be able to save up for so insurance would be useful. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McJarvis ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/McJarvis)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	b45b0n	CMV: Insurance isn't worth it.	Ok so I don't really see the point in insurance. It seems a bit like a ripoff to me. Here's why: Insurance takes your money, which you may never get back. So when you get insurance for something, you pay a company per month/year/whatever to "insure" something, which means that if there is a crisis or the insured object is damaged, they will pay for it to be fixed or replaced. This would be fine and dandy, but this doesn't happen a lot. I'd reckon that a lot of the time, these things don't happen. So you don't see a return on your investment. Other times, when you do need payment, the insurance company decides whether it wants to pay out or not. For example, if I were to purchase insurance on my phone, and I dropped it in water, then depending on the terms of the insurance I might not see my investment returned in the form of a fixed or new phone. Another reason why I believe that insurance isn't worth it is that a savings account would do the same things, but better. If you paid the money that would go into insurance into a savings account, you would be able to take that money out when you need it, on your own terms. That means that the problem of no return on the investment doesn't apply. In the case of you not having enough in your account, you could always take out a loan and pay it back with the money you would put into the account anyways. Also you would be able to get all the money back if you didn't require the savings any more. For example if I was putting money in an account for my pet but then my pet died, I would be able to use all that money for another purpose. Compare that to the case where I took out insurance, I would lose all the money. I think I am missing something that is vital to why insurance works. Insurance is even required by law in some cases, like car insurance in the UK for example. CMV!	HanOnlyWan	3	3	[ { "author": "BRETTVARG", "id": "ej48n0u", "score": 43, "text": "Insurance is here because a saving account may never get big enough. And making it legal is for your protection. Say you were to get hit and were hospitalized and needed a new car. Virtually no common person will have enough to pay for everything you need. This would leave you out of luck because you can’t get blood from a rock. ", "timestamp": 1553263555 }, { "author": "HanOnlyWan", "id": "ej48ygh", "score": -9, "text": "Why not take out a loan then? Surely paying back that loan would be pretty much the same as paying for the insurance. And as far as I know, insurance won't even cover all of the costs of the accident. ", "timestamp": 1553263775 }, { "author": "Ansuz07", "id": "ej49772", "score": 51, "text": "No bank will give you a loan for that. Odds are you _already_ have a loan out for the car, so they are not going to give you another loan to get the car fixed.", "timestamp": 1553263938 } ]	[ { "author": "McJarvis", "id": "ej490oq", "score": 1417, "text": "Insurance is useful when the potential damages go far beyond what you can afford to pay. For instance, my father had ample health insurance and was in a car accident in his 50s. He broke all of his ribs, punctured a lung, and sustained a brain injury. Hospital bills would have been in the millions had he not been insured. We would have had to make some very hard decisions (including taking him off life support in the first month) if we hadn't had insurance.\n\nSo to me, it's all about liquidity. If the potential costs of something are so high that I wouldn't be able to pay for it, then insurance is worth thinking about.", "timestamp": 1553263818 }, { "author": "HanOnlyWan", "id": "ej496wy", "score": 436, "text": "!delta. That is something that you wouldn't be able to save up for so insurance would be useful. ", "timestamp": 1553263933 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "ej4985r", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/McJarvis ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/McJarvis)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1553263956 } ]	[ "ej48n0u", "ej48ygh", "ej49772" ]	[ "ej490oq", "ej496wy", "ej4985r" ]
CMV: I should secretly record (audio, video, or both) all of my sexual encounters to provide evidence in the off chance I'm falsely accused of rape In today's society (I can only speak for the US since that's where I live) men have little to no defense to a rape accusation if they truly are innocent. Rape is the only crime I can think of where if it does go to court, the man is usually presumed to be guilty until proven innocent even though the legal system should in theory work the opposite way. Let's say I hookup with a girl consensually but after the fact the girl regrets it. Or I have sex consensually but the girl later threatens to publicly accuse me of rape in order to either get back at me for something unrelated or to blackmail me into doing or giving her something else. Even though falsely accusing someone of rape is technically illegal, the girl would know that the chance of actually getting in trouble for it is pretty slim since proving malicious intent is incredibly difficult. In this case, what defense does the guy have? It'll likely be just his word against hers and most of society will lean towards believing the girl. In order to provide some form of defense in these cases, I believe I should secretly record all of my sexual encounters (both random hookups or sex with a girlfriend and everything in between) without the girl knowing I'm doing so. This way I can use this recording as evidence of my innocence in a court of law should it ever escalate to that level. Another advantage of this recording would be to prevent a public false rape accusation in the first place. If a girl threatens to publicly accuse you of rape, you can tell her about this recording (after making all appropriate backup copies) to dissuade her from going public. This is advantageous because even if you are able to prove your innocence in court through other means, simply being accused of rape can be disastrous to your life. People you know might think you did rape the girl, you could lose your job, and if anyone in the future ever searches for you on Google you'll forever be associated with a rape charge even when you weren't found guilty. The last advantage I can think of is that you can use this recording to prove cases where the girl rapes the man. Even though it's false, many people tend to be believe that men cannot be raped. So if this does ever go to court, the man has a small chance of actually winning. With the recording, his chances go up because the recording will the judge/jury hear/see exactly what happened rather than rely on each other's words and pre-existing biases. ----------------- Common rebuttals I'm anticipating: 1) Recording another person without their knowledge is illegal and/or immoral I live in a one-party consent state (as with most other US States) so doing so is legal here. Even if it was illegal, I'd much rather be found guilty of that crime than rape. Also even though this evidence would be inadmissible in court, I could use it to potentially deter the girl or prosecutor from publicly accusing me in the first place. As far as morality or ethics goes, I personally don't consider this to be immoral. Even if I did, I'd much rather act immorally and retain my freedom then be moral and potentially spend a significant portion of my life in prison as an innocent man. 2) You don't have to worry about being falsely accused of rape since statistically there's an extremely low chance of this occurring. You're much better off worrying about other things While this is true, you never know if you're that statistically outlier or not. Unless there is a 100% guarantee (not 99% or 99.99%) that this will never occur to me, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry if I'm going be involved in sexual activity. Also recording a sexual encounter secretly is extremely easy to do, just turn on a hidden camera or tape recorder in your bedroom if you believe there's any chance a girl (or anyone for that fact) might be coming over. Takes not even 20 seconds. If you're going over to her place, then turning on your phone's audio recorder is sufficient and also takes only a few seconds. 3) Don't have sex with anyone you don't fully trust Sometimes people you trust can break that trust. What if I've been having sex with my girlfriend, who I trust, and then one day I decide to break up with her. There's a small chance she can falsely accuse me of rape to get back at me. If it's a new girl, then you might not fully know if she's crazy or not until either it's too late or you decide to wait a long time for sex. What if I wanted to have consensual sex with random girl I met at a bar? Under this logic, one night stands aren't possible if I also wanted to protect myself legally. 4) If the girl finds out you've been recording her, she's not going to be too happy If she finds out, there's nothing she can do except leave me (unless you live in a two-party consent state). I'd much rather risk losing a girl than risk having no defense and potentially spending 5, 10, 15+ years in prison. As I mentioned above, even though the risk of spending time in prison innocently is incredibly small, if you do happen to be that one unlucky guy then the consequences are gargantuan. Girls will always come and go, but you only get 1 life (which I don't intend spending it in prison). 5) In cases of false rape accusations, there are other ways to gather evidence The only ways I can think of is either baiting the girl into saying she'll falsely accuse me of rape on audio/video or getting some form of documented confirmation after sex that the sex was entirely consensual (whether it be a text or verbally on audio/video). The problem with these 2 ways is there is some level on control on the girl's side of whether you obtain that evidence or not. Secretly recording a sexual encounter gives the man 100% control over the collection of the evidence. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	If you're trying to prove that you didn't have sex with someone without their consent, revealing that you have taped or recorded sex with them without their consent seems like a terrible idea. Also, this: >Also even though this evidence would be inadmissible in court, I could use it to potentially deter the girl or prosecutor from publicly accusing me in the first place. sounds like blackmail, which is also illegal. --- >If you're trying to prove that you didn't have sex with someone without their consent, revealing that you have taped or recorded sex with them without their consent seems like a terrible idea. If there is reason to believe the tape would not help my defense, why would I reveal it? That just sounds like a bad idea from a self-defense point-of-view. Even if I did reveal it, it's not like I'll get into legal trouble for it (assuming you live in a one-party consent state, which is the majority of America) >sounds like blackmail, which is also illegal. I would much rather risk adding in a blackmailing charge to the rape charge in exchange for potentially not having to deal with the rape charge in the first place. Even better, replacing the rape charge with a blackmailing charge will do a lot less damage to your life than a rape charge (for ex: not being put on the sex offender list). If you're already being charged with rape, adding in an extra charge isn't as big of a deal because your life is already more or less completely ruined. --- >I would much rather risk adding in a blackmailing charge to the rape charge in exchange for potentially not having to deal with the rape charge in the first place Witness tampering is a felony that will get you prison time. So is extortion. You don't want to threaten someone who has legal consultation or is already talking to the police, that's twice as stupid as recording someone without their consent for the purposes of intimidating them. Not to mention the Reddit post discussing your intent. Essentially you're talking about committing a crime that will put you away in order to not be prosecuted for a different crime that will put you away. Accuracy versus precision in a nutshell.	> Rape is the only crime I can think of where if it does go to court, the man is usually presumed to be guilty until proven innocent even though the legal system should in theory work the opposite way. Could you tell me how this works? Do you have real reason to believe that in real-world situations like this, it's common that men are convicted of rape without evidence? --- [deleted] --- And... conviction rates? You've described a scary episode of Law and Order, but that's not a reason to be worried. In situations where the two people had sex, one person says it was consentual and the other person says it was rape and there is literally no other evidence, how often is there a conviction?	6xq9an	CMV: I should secretly record (audio, video, or both) all of my sexual encounters to provide evidence in the off chance I'm falsely accused of rape	In today's society (I can only speak for the US since that's where I live) men have little to no defense to a rape accusation if they truly are innocent. Rape is the only crime I can think of where if it does go to court, the man is usually presumed to be guilty until proven innocent even though the legal system should in theory work the opposite way. Let's say I hookup with a girl consensually but after the fact the girl regrets it. Or I have sex consensually but the girl later threatens to publicly accuse me of rape in order to either get back at me for something unrelated or to blackmail me into doing or giving her something else. Even though falsely accusing someone of rape is technically illegal, the girl would know that the chance of actually getting in trouble for it is pretty slim since proving malicious intent is incredibly difficult. In this case, what defense does the guy have? It'll likely be just his word against hers and most of society will lean towards believing the girl. In order to provide some form of defense in these cases, I believe I should secretly record all of my sexual encounters (both random hookups or sex with a girlfriend and everything in between) without the girl knowing I'm doing so. This way I can use this recording as evidence of my innocence in a court of law should it ever escalate to that level. Another advantage of this recording would be to prevent a public false rape accusation in the first place. If a girl threatens to publicly accuse you of rape, you can tell her about this recording (after making all appropriate backup copies) to dissuade her from going public. This is advantageous because even if you are able to prove your innocence in court through other means, simply being accused of rape can be disastrous to your life. People you know might think you did rape the girl, you could lose your job, and if anyone in the future ever searches for you on Google you'll forever be associated with a rape charge even when you weren't found guilty. The last advantage I can think of is that you can use this recording to prove cases where the girl rapes the man. Even though it's false, many people tend to be believe that men cannot be raped. So if this does ever go to court, the man has a small chance of actually winning. With the recording, his chances go up because the recording will the judge/jury hear/see exactly what happened rather than rely on each other's words and pre-existing biases. ----------------- Common rebuttals I'm anticipating: 1) Recording another person without their knowledge is illegal and/or immoral I live in a one-party consent state (as with most other US States) so doing so is legal here. Even if it was illegal, I'd much rather be found guilty of that crime than rape. Also even though this evidence would be inadmissible in court, I could use it to potentially deter the girl or prosecutor from publicly accusing me in the first place. As far as morality or ethics goes, I personally don't consider this to be immoral. Even if I did, I'd much rather act immorally and retain my freedom then be moral and potentially spend a significant portion of my life in prison as an innocent man. 2) You don't have to worry about being falsely accused of rape since statistically there's an extremely low chance of this occurring. You're much better off worrying about other things While this is true, you never know if you're that statistically outlier or not. Unless there is a 100% guarantee (not 99% or 99.99%) that this will never occur to me, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry if I'm going be involved in sexual activity. Also recording a sexual encounter secretly is extremely easy to do, just turn on a hidden camera or tape recorder in your bedroom if you believe there's any chance a girl (or anyone for that fact) might be coming over. Takes not even 20 seconds. If you're going over to her place, then turning on your phone's audio recorder is sufficient and also takes only a few seconds. 3) Don't have sex with anyone you don't fully trust Sometimes people you trust can break that trust. What if I've been having sex with my girlfriend, who I trust, and then one day I decide to break up with her. There's a small chance she can falsely accuse me of rape to get back at me. If it's a new girl, then you might not fully know if she's crazy or not until either it's too late or you decide to wait a long time for sex. What if I wanted to have consensual sex with random girl I met at a bar? Under this logic, one night stands aren't possible if I also wanted to protect myself legally. 4) If the girl finds out you've been recording her, she's not going to be too happy If she finds out, there's nothing she can do except leave me (unless you live in a two-party consent state). I'd much rather risk losing a girl than risk having no defense and potentially spending 5, 10, 15+ years in prison. As I mentioned above, even though the risk of spending time in prison innocently is incredibly small, if you do happen to be that one unlucky guy then the consequences are gargantuan. Girls will always come and go, but you only get 1 life (which I don't intend spending it in prison). 5) In cases of false rape accusations, there are other ways to gather evidence The only ways I can think of is either baiting the girl into saying she'll falsely accuse me of rape on audio/video or getting some form of documented confirmation after sex that the sex was entirely consensual (whether it be a text or verbally on audio/video). The problem with these 2 ways is there is some level on control on the girl's side of whether you obtain that evidence or not. Secretly recording a sexual encounter gives the man 100% control over the collection of the evidence. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	thowaay	3	3	[ { "author": "Literally_Herodotus", "id": "dmhotyr", "score": 46, "text": "If you're trying to prove that you didn't have sex with someone without their consent, revealing that you have taped or recorded sex with them without their consent seems like a terrible idea.\n\nAlso, this:\n\n>Also even though this evidence would be inadmissible in court, I could use it to potentially deter the girl or prosecutor from publicly accusing me in the first place. \n\nsounds like blackmail, which is also illegal.", "timestamp": 1504401799 }, { "author": "thowaay", "id": "dmhqgpv", "score": 0, "text": ">If you're trying to prove that you didn't have sex with someone without their consent, revealing that you have taped or recorded sex with them without their consent seems like a terrible idea.\n\nIf there is reason to believe the tape would not help my defense, why would I reveal it? That just sounds like a bad idea from a self-defense point-of-view. Even if I did reveal it, it's not like I'll get into legal trouble for it (assuming you live in a one-party consent state, which is the majority of America)\n\n>sounds like blackmail, which is also illegal.\n\nI would much rather risk adding in a blackmailing charge to the rape charge in exchange for potentially not having to deal with the rape charge in the first place. Even better, replacing the rape charge with a blackmailing charge will do a lot less damage to your life than a rape charge (for ex: not being put on the sex offender list). If you're already being charged with rape, adding in an extra charge isn't as big of a deal because your life is already more or less completely ruined. \n\n", "timestamp": 1504404196 }, { "author": "Holy_City", "id": "dmhsfzy", "score": 13, "text": ">I would much rather risk adding in a blackmailing charge to the rape charge in exchange for potentially not having to deal with the rape charge in the first place\n\nWitness tampering is a felony that will get you prison time. So is extortion. You don't want to threaten someone who has legal consultation or is already talking to the police, that's twice as stupid as recording someone without their consent for the purposes of intimidating them. Not to mention the Reddit post discussing your intent. \n\nEssentially you're talking about committing a crime that will put you away in order to not be prosecuted for a different crime that will put you away. Accuracy versus precision in a nutshell. ", "timestamp": 1504407130 } ]	[ { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhpsek", "score": 14, "text": "> Rape is the only crime I can think of where if it does go to court, the man is usually presumed to be guilty until proven innocent even though the legal system should in theory work the opposite way.\n\nCould you tell me how this works? Do you have real reason to believe that in real-world situations like this, it's common that men are convicted of rape without evidence?", "timestamp": 1504403207 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhpx4a", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1504403398 }, { "author": "PreacherJudge", "id": "dmhq0x0", "score": 7, "text": "And... conviction rates? You've described a scary episode of Law and Order, but that's not a reason to be worried.\n\nIn situations where the two people had sex, one person says it was consentual and the other person says it was rape and there is literally no other evidence, how often is there a conviction?", "timestamp": 1504403557 } ]	[ "dmhotyr", "dmhqgpv", "dmhsfzy" ]	[ "dmhpsek", "dmhpx4a", "dmhq0x0" ]
CMV: Gay Pride Hurts LGBT People More Than It Helps Them As a gay teen, I believe that pride and other such events hurt LGBT people more than it helps them. What I mean by this is that the whole point of pride is to make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud. Except that's not what I, or most of my other gay friends actually want. We just want to be accepted into society as regular, everyday people. These events making a big deal about sexuality and acting like it's something to be proud of actively try to place us on a different level to straight people, which is the last thing I want TLDR; Me and most of the other gay people I talk to just want to be treated like everyone else, and gay pride actively goes against that CMV	What huge strides should have been made in LGBT rights that have been directly prevented by pride parades? How many people harboring anti gay views would have made a complete 180 if not for pride parades? How much legislation (pro or anti gay) has been directly caused by pride parades? I would agree that pride events are on their way to being redundant. We're definitely not there yet, but that is the goal and we're making progress. But your view is that pride events cause harm and that they cause more harm than good. You need to provide evidence of significant harm, and show that it is directly caused by pride events. It's perfectly fine if pride events aren't your cup of tea, or that you just want to be left alone to live your life. However that has nothing to do with pride events causing direct harm in excess of the visibility, support, and community building that they achieve. --- "Harm" May be too strong of a word to use here, but that's not my point. My point is that modern pride events try to elevate gay people and put them on a different level to everyone else by treating us like we're special and need special treatment, when really we just want to get on with out lives. --- Your OP is about Pride marches in particular, but the kind of logic you demonstrate here, is the core rhetoric of a very general appeal to the status quo. "Why defend this inequally treated minority at all? If they are really equal, then we should talk about them, the exact same way as about the majority that's keeping them inequally." You could say the same thing about LGBT support groups, about school campaigns against gay bullying, about the existence of gay bars, or about the legal recognition of LGBT people as protected classes that are specifically defended from discrimination. "Why make it all be about gay people? If we are really equal, then gay identity shouldn't be enshrined as a special thing to be defended at all." But it *is* special. Homophobia makes it special. As long as anti-gay hate crimes exists, as long as parents go to homophobic churches, as long as enough people are homophobic that employment or housing discrimination is a plausible danger, we can all agree that some form of systemic acknowledgement of LGBT people's special circumstances, is necessary. Can we agree about that, and say that we just disagree about whether Pride marches in particular are the right ones?	> make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud Do similar parades for other groups hurt their overall groups as well or is this limited to LBGT? For example does the NYC St. Patrick's Day parade hurt the larger Irish community? --- This same logic can apply to other groups, it's just that I have more experience with the gay community --- Do you think people have a lesser view of people of Irish decent because of the St. Patrick's Day Parade?	6qiwi4	CMV: Gay Pride Hurts LGBT People More Than It Helps Them	As a gay teen, I believe that pride and other such events hurt LGBT people more than it helps them. What I mean by this is that the whole point of pride is to make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud. Except that's not what I, or most of my other gay friends actually want. We just want to be accepted into society as regular, everyday people. These events making a big deal about sexuality and acting like it's something to be proud of actively try to place us on a different level to straight people, which is the last thing I want TLDR; Me and most of the other gay people I talk to just want to be treated like everyone else, and gay pride actively goes against that CMV	Just_an_Elf	3	3	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dkxn1jg", "score": 2, "text": "What huge strides should have been made in LGBT rights that have been directly prevented by pride parades?\n\nHow many people harboring anti gay views would have made a complete 180 if not for pride parades?\n\nHow much legislation (pro or anti gay) has been directly caused by pride parades?\n\nI would agree that pride events are on their way to being redundant. We're definitely not there yet, but that is the goal and we're making progress.\n\nBut your view is that pride events cause harm and that they cause more harm than good. You need to provide evidence of significant harm, and show that it is directly caused by pride events.\n\nIt's perfectly fine if pride events aren't your cup of tea, or that you just want to be left alone to live your life. However that has nothing to do with pride events causing direct harm in excess of the visibility, support, and community building that they achieve.", "timestamp": 1501440965 }, { "author": "Just_an_Elf", "id": "dkxnxb9", "score": 1, "text": "\"Harm\" May be too strong of a word to use here, but that's not my point.\nMy point is that modern pride events try to elevate gay people and put them on a different level to everyone else by treating us like we're special and need special treatment, when really we just want to get on with out lives.", "timestamp": 1501442118 }, { "author": "Genoscythe_", "id": "dkxpu9f", "score": 3, "text": "Your OP is about Pride marches in particular, but the kind of logic you demonstrate here, is the core rhetoric of a very general appeal to the status quo. \"Why defend this inequally treated minority at all? If they are really equal, then we should talk about them, the exact same way as about the majority that's keeping them inequally.\"\n\nYou could say the same thing about LGBT support groups, about school campaigns against gay bullying, about the existence of gay bars, or about the legal recognition of LGBT people as protected classes that are specifically defended from discrimination. \n\n\"Why make it all be about gay people? If we are really equal, then gay identity shouldn't be enshrined as a special thing to be defended at all.\"\n\nBut it *is* special. Homophobia makes it special. As long as anti-gay hate crimes exists, as long as parents go to homophobic churches, as long as enough people are homophobic that employment or housing discrimination is a plausible danger, we can all agree that some form of systemic acknowledgement of LGBT people's special circumstances, is necessary. \n\nCan we agree about that, and say that we just disagree about whether Pride marches in particular are the right ones?\n", "timestamp": 1501444580 } ]	[ { "author": "SC803", "id": "dkxlof3", "score": 6, "text": "> make a big deal about being gay or whatever you call yourself, to shout it loud and be proud\n\nDo similar parades for other groups hurt their overall groups as well or is this limited to LBGT?\n\nFor example does the NYC St. Patrick's Day parade hurt the larger Irish community?", "timestamp": 1501439169 }, { "author": "Just_an_Elf", "id": "dkxlswp", "score": 2, "text": "This same logic can apply to other groups, it's just that I have more experience with the gay community", "timestamp": 1501439331 }, { "author": "SC803", "id": "dkxlyqt", "score": 5, "text": "Do you think people have a lesser view of people of Irish decent because of the St. Patrick's Day Parade?", "timestamp": 1501439544 } ]	[ "dkxn1jg", "dkxnxb9", "dkxpu9f" ]	[ "dkxlof3", "dkxlswp", "dkxlyqt" ]
CMV: In most cases shoplifting is economically beneficial So long as the shoplifter doesn't earn enough money to have savings and they don't give the money saved from doing so to something that does save money, their theft is overall beneficial to the economy. This is supported by the circular flow of income in which businesses provide wages in exchange for labour, at both ends of this flow however are savings, where money is taken out of this flow. So if somebody who cannot afford to save money steals from somebody who can save, less money is taken out of the economy. Just to be clear I'm only making this point about stealing from large corporations, doing so from small companies which can't afford to lose the money will damage the economy overall.	If they are forced to spend money defending against theft then that money is not being spent to further the economy. --- By spending money in any way they are benefiting the economy, as long as that money isn't going into savings it will benefit the economy. What makes you think that money spent on security is any less beneficial than money spent on buying inventory? --- https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp --- This fallacy implies that the person being stolen from will eventually spend the money anyway. I'm making the point that a business owner is more likely to save money thus removing it from the economy than somebody who is stealing from them. --- Saving money does not remove it from the economy. Where do you think that money goes once the banks have it? --- I will admit I don't quite understand how banking interacts with economics, mind explaining to me what does happen? --- Banks are able to leverage savings accounts in order to open loans. Loans help people purchase cars, houses, open businesses. When credit it tight and loans are harder to come by, the economy as a whole slows down. Following the 2008 recession, the Federal Reserve lowered rates to nearly 0% in the hopes to stimulate the economy to spend more through loans. Savings is absolutely crucial to a health economy. Saving doesn't remove money from the economy, it simply changes the timing of when that money is spent.	Your argument is, essentially, that a dollar saved by a person who is more likely to spend that dollar increases the velocity of money: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money This is good thinking, and an interesting argument. However: consider the price effects of someone (even a single person) stealing something. Does the store compensate for the theft in some manner? --- If the company has no competition then I could understand that stealing from them probably isn't the best idea. If the company does have competition though there is two outcomes, one in which they raise their prices to profit in spite of shoplifters, in which case people would instead shop at their competitors because they have the same product but at a cheaper price. The other situation is one where the prices stay the same, in which case it can be assumed that they still make a profit and so in the end they still gain money but less than before, meaning that less of that money will be saved. --- You're ignoring the effect of theft on changing expectations -- a very important topic in economics. As a store owner: Yes, you can absorb the loss. But can you absorb the knowledge that you are apparently the only store to experience that theft? If so, it means you are forced to take action to solve it, which \forces\ you to raise prices. If not, it means everyone is facing similar theft, which \allows\ you to raise prices. Either way -- no matter what -- an increase in theft, even at the margin (e.g. one instance) will increase prices, at least in the long(er) run. And any increase in prices will offset any increase in the velocity of money that I mentioned above, counteracting the effect. At best, the economy will be equally well off. At worst, the economy will see a reduction at the margin in the production of things that people value. --- !delta I suppose I could argue that companies are making enough profit that shoplifting won't affect them too much, but eventually the theft would become too much. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Det_ ([29∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Det_)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	a8c53r	CMV: In most cases shoplifting is economically beneficial	So long as the shoplifter doesn't earn enough money to have savings and they don't give the money saved from doing so to something that does save money, their theft is overall beneficial to the economy. This is supported by the circular flow of income in which businesses provide wages in exchange for labour, at both ends of this flow however are savings, where money is taken out of this flow. So if somebody who cannot afford to save money steals from somebody who can save, less money is taken out of the economy. Just to be clear I'm only making this point about stealing from large corporations, doing so from small companies which can't afford to lose the money will damage the economy overall.	PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS	7	5	[ { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "ec9kcg7", "score": 16, "text": "If they are forced to spend money defending against theft then that money is not being spent to further the economy. ", "timestamp": 1545415315 }, { "author": "PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS", "id": "ec9kul6", "score": 2, "text": "By spending money in any way they are benefiting the economy, as long as that money isn't going into savings it will benefit the economy.\n\nWhat makes you think that money spent on security is any less beneficial than money spent on buying inventory?", "timestamp": 1545415703 }, { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "ec9kzuq", "score": 12, "text": "https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp", "timestamp": 1545415816 }, { "author": "PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS", "id": "ec9lnqy", "score": 3, "text": "This fallacy implies that the person being stolen from will eventually spend the money anyway. I'm making the point that a business owner is more likely to save money thus removing it from the economy than somebody who is stealing from them.", "timestamp": 1545416319 }, { "author": "Det_", "id": "ec9lwfi", "score": 13, "text": "Saving money does not remove it from the economy. Where do you think that money goes once the banks have it?", "timestamp": 1545416503 }, { "author": "PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS", "id": "ec9mng9", "score": 2, "text": "I will admit I don't quite understand how banking interacts with economics, mind explaining to me what does happen?", "timestamp": 1545417081 }, { "author": "black_ravenous", "id": "ec9o5gk", "score": 4, "text": "Banks are able to leverage savings accounts in order to open loans. Loans help people purchase cars, houses, open businesses. When credit it tight and loans are harder to come by, the economy as a whole slows down.\n\nFollowing the 2008 recession, the Federal Reserve lowered rates to nearly 0% in the hopes to stimulate the economy to spend more through loans.\n\nSavings is absolutely crucial to a health economy. Saving doesn't remove money from the economy, it simply changes the timing of when that money is spent. ", "timestamp": 1545418228 } ]	[ { "author": "Det_", "id": "ec9l284", "score": 6, "text": "Your argument is, essentially, that a dollar saved by a person who is more likely to spend that dollar increases the velocity of money:\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money\n\nThis is good thinking, and an interesting argument. \n\nHowever: consider the price effects of someone (even a single person) stealing something. Does the store compensate for the theft in some manner?", "timestamp": 1545415866 }, { "author": "PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS", "id": "ec9m4zl", "score": 1, "text": "If the company has no competition then I could understand that stealing from them probably isn't the best idea.\n\nIf the company does have competition though there is two outcomes, one in which they raise their prices to profit in spite of shoplifters, in which case people would instead shop at their competitors because they have the same product but at a cheaper price. The other situation is one where the prices stay the same, in which case it can be assumed that they still make a profit and so in the end they still gain money but less than before, meaning that less of that money will be saved.", "timestamp": 1545416688 }, { "author": "Det_", "id": "ec9o0ux", "score": 4, "text": "You're ignoring the effect of theft on changing expectations -- a very important topic in economics.\n\nAs a store owner: Yes, you can absorb the loss. But can you absorb the knowledge that you are apparently the only store to experience that theft?\n\nIf so, it means you are forced to take action to solve it, which \\forces\\ you to raise prices.\n\nIf not, it means everyone is facing similar theft, which \\allows\\ you to raise prices.\n\nEither way -- no matter what -- an increase in theft, even at the margin (e.g. one instance) will increase prices, at least in the long(er) run.\n\nAnd any increase in prices will offset any increase in the velocity of money that I mentioned above, counteracting the effect. At best, the economy will be equally well off. At worst, the economy will see a reduction at the margin in the production of things that people value.", "timestamp": 1545418132 }, { "author": "PM-ME-YOUR-HOBOS", "id": "ec9oa5l", "score": 1, "text": "!delta\n\nI suppose I could argue that companies are making enough profit that shoplifting won't affect them too much, but eventually the theft would become too much.", "timestamp": 1545418328 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "ec9obds", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Det_ ([29∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Det_)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1545418353 } ]	[ "ec9kcg7", "ec9kul6", "ec9kzuq", "ec9lnqy", "ec9lwfi", "ec9mng9", "ec9o5gk" ]	[ "ec9l284", "ec9m4zl", "ec9o0ux", "ec9oa5l", "ec9obds" ]
CMV: Trucks and commercial trailers should be restricted to the rightmost lane only Many states already have laws in place restricting trucks to specific lanes. It's a good start, but I believe that these regulations: - Should be adopted nationwide - Should extend to trucks hauling commercial trailers, such as those typically used by lawn-care companies or contractors. Trailers-for-rent (UHaul) should also be included in these restrictions. A truck attempting to overtake another on the freeway can cause dangerous stackups, especially when both are going below the speed limit. Driving around a semi, especially one that's weaving, requires a considerable amount of attention. With their large blind spots, semis are unfit to merge repeatedly at high speeds. Regardless, truckers frequently merge without regard to the cars around them, the responsibility falling solely on the cars to avoid the haphazard merging of an impatient trucker. If one single motorist isn't paying attention --almost a certainty-- the consequence could be remarkably fatal. If trucks were restricted to the right lane, dangerous backups would be avoided. Traffic flow would be consistently smoother, especially during rush hour. Cars would be able to pass without fear of being in the truck's blind spot. The same principle also extends to large trailers, which also have a similarly large blind spot and slow the tow-car down to similar speeds. EDIT: I should have been more clear in my post - of course, every motorist's utmost responsibility is to avoid danger. Trucks and cars alike are frequently required by law to move over a lane if there is a hazard in the rightmost lane, which is obviously acceptable. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	incoming merging traffic would be put in a much more dangerous position of having to stop, speed up or getting crushed by oncoming trucks. --- If the trucks are going at a high speed, there should be enough space between them to allow for a car to merge. If it's rush hour traffic, you'll have to stop to merge no matter what kind of vehicle is in the right lane. --- Sure, there is enough space. But depending on the on-ramp you may have very room to react after realizing your ideal merge speed is taking you right to the center of a semi. You'll either have to speed up a lot and probably end up cutting in front of the truck, which trucks hate because of their longer stopping distance, or you'll have to slow down to below freeway speeds to get behind the truck. Both of which are more dangerous than necessary. Also, depending on your car and the slope of the on-ramp, you might be pretty much flooring it just to get up to speed, again limiting your options and probably even making it more dangerous for you to enter the freeway at slower speeds since it'll take you, in your junky car, more time to get back up to freeway speeds.	[deleted] --- I should have been more clear in my post - of course, every motorist's utmost responsibility is to avoid danger. Trucks and cars alike are frequently required by law to move over a lane if there is a hazard in the rightmost lane, which is obviously acceptable. Nonetheless, Δ --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RRuruurrr ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RRuruurrr)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	9fbdy3	CMV: Trucks and commercial trailers should be restricted to the rightmost lane only	Many states already have laws in place restricting trucks to specific lanes. It's a good start, but I believe that these regulations: - Should be adopted nationwide - Should extend to trucks hauling commercial trailers, such as those typically used by lawn-care companies or contractors. Trailers-for-rent (UHaul) should also be included in these restrictions. A truck attempting to overtake another on the freeway can cause dangerous stackups, especially when both are going below the speed limit. Driving around a semi, especially one that's weaving, requires a considerable amount of attention. With their large blind spots, semis are unfit to merge repeatedly at high speeds. Regardless, truckers frequently merge without regard to the cars around them, the responsibility falling solely on the cars to avoid the haphazard merging of an impatient trucker. If one single motorist isn't paying attention --almost a certainty-- the consequence could be remarkably fatal. If trucks were restricted to the right lane, dangerous backups would be avoided. Traffic flow would be consistently smoother, especially during rush hour. Cars would be able to pass without fear of being in the truck's blind spot. The same principle also extends to large trailers, which also have a similarly large blind spot and slow the tow-car down to similar speeds. EDIT: I should have been more clear in my post - of course, every motorist's utmost responsibility is to avoid danger. Trucks and cars alike are frequently required by law to move over a lane if there is a hazard in the rightmost lane, which is obviously acceptable. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	JeNePasParleFrancais	3	3	[ { "author": "amus", "id": "e5v67f6", "score": 13, "text": "incoming merging traffic would be put in a much more dangerous position of having to stop, speed up or getting crushed by oncoming trucks.", "timestamp": 1536784193 }, { "author": "JeNePasParleFrancais", "id": "e5v6ppi", "score": 2, "text": "If the trucks are going at a high speed, there should be enough space between them to allow for a car to merge. If it's rush hour traffic, you'll have to stop to merge no matter what kind of vehicle is in the right lane.", "timestamp": 1536784613 }, { "author": "AnythingApplied", "id": "e5v7khk", "score": 5, "text": "Sure, there is enough space. But depending on the on-ramp you may have very room to react after realizing your ideal merge speed is taking you right to the center of a semi. You'll either have to speed up a lot and probably end up cutting in front of the truck, which trucks hate because of their longer stopping distance, or you'll have to slow down to below freeway speeds to get behind the truck.\n\nBoth of which are more dangerous than necessary.\n\nAlso, depending on your car and the slope of the on-ramp, you might be pretty much flooring it just to get up to speed, again limiting your options and probably even making it more dangerous for you to enter the freeway at slower speeds since it'll take you, in your junky car, more time to get back up to freeway speeds.", "timestamp": 1536785321 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e5v6p8p", "score": 1, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1536784602 }, { "author": "JeNePasParleFrancais", "id": "e5v6vvv", "score": 1, "text": "I should have been more clear in my post - of course, every motorist's utmost responsibility is to avoid danger. Trucks and cars alike are frequently required by law to move over a lane if there is a hazard in the rightmost lane, which is obviously acceptable.\n\nNonetheless, Δ", "timestamp": 1536784752 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "e5v6wlc", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RRuruurrr ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RRuruurrr)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1536784768 } ]	[ "e5v67f6", "e5v6ppi", "e5v7khk" ]	[ "e5v6p8p", "e5v6vvv", "e5v6wlc" ]
CMV: The death of Makiyah Bryant is a poor example of police brutality and systemic racism in the US. The media is reporting the death of a black 16-year-old girl, Makiyah Bryant, by a white cop and associating it with the Chauvin verdict on the same day. The intent here is clear: to portray this as another incident of police brutality and systemic racism. However, shooting Makiyah Bryant was justified. She was lunging for another woman on the ground while swinging a kitchen knife. This is not the same as cops pepper spraying a black child a while back; Bryant was brandishing a lethal weapon with malicious intent. This is not the same as the cop who fired a handgun instead of a taser to detain a wanted man; an innocent citizen’s life was clearly in danger. And this is not the same as the cop who shot Adam Toledo; Bryant did not receive unclear instructions and was about to murder a citizen. The race and age of the victim make this all the more unfortunate, but claiming that this is a result of systemic racism or is an example of police brutality is inaccurate.	Do you think if she was white she would have been shot? --- I think she should have been shot even if she was white. --- Cool, but thats not what they asked. The question was "do you think she still would have been shot if she was white?" Edit: learn the difference between "would have been" and "should have been" lmao --- Less likely from a systemic point of view, but still would have been shot would be my answer. --- If you believe that she would have been less likely to be shot if she had been white, then her death is still part of a statistic that shows that black people are more likely be shot for something than their white counterparts would be for doing the same action.	[removed] --- Any? Regardless of circumstance? How so? Are you suggesting that, even if a black person is in the act of committing a capital crime, a white cop cannot shoot them because they owe them a pass? A pass to murder someone? If you are somehow suggesting that lethal force is never necessary, that’s a whole different discussion; the way you phrased your answer suggests that other ethnicities of cop shooting other ethnicities of criminal is okay, but the white/black combo is unacceptable. --- [deleted] --- How do you fail to see how horrifically racist that is? 🙈 --- [deleted]	mvbr5s	CMV: The death of Makiyah Bryant is a poor example of police brutality and systemic racism in the US.	The media is reporting the death of a black 16-year-old girl, Makiyah Bryant, by a white cop and associating it with the Chauvin verdict on the same day. The intent here is clear: to portray this as another incident of police brutality and systemic racism. However, shooting Makiyah Bryant was justified. She was lunging for another woman on the ground while swinging a kitchen knife. This is not the same as cops pepper spraying a black child a while back; Bryant was brandishing a lethal weapon with malicious intent. This is not the same as the cop who fired a handgun instead of a taser to detain a wanted man; an innocent citizen’s life was clearly in danger. And this is not the same as the cop who shot Adam Toledo; Bryant did not receive unclear instructions and was about to murder a citizen. The race and age of the victim make this all the more unfortunate, but claiming that this is a result of systemic racism or is an example of police brutality is inaccurate.	KoreanStudentDoctor	5	5	[ { "author": "reineedshelp", "id": "gvb5q46", "score": -51, "text": "Do you think if she was white she would have been shot?", "timestamp": 1619002091 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvb6qk7", "score": 325, "text": "I think she should have been shot even if she was white.", "timestamp": 1619002927 }, { "author": "quesoandcats", "id": "gvbgkkp", "score": -43, "text": "Cool, but thats not what they asked. The question was \"do you think she still would have been shot if she was white?\"\n\nEdit: learn the difference between \"would have been\" and \"should have been\" lmao", "timestamp": 1619009525 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvbgvkp", "score": 123, "text": "Less likely from a systemic point of view, but still would have been shot would be my answer.", "timestamp": 1619009698 }, { "author": "Ocadioan", "id": "gvbjngo", "score": 70, "text": "If you believe that she would have been less likely to be shot if she had been white, then her death is still part of a statistic that shows that black people are more likely be shot for something than their white counterparts would be for doing the same action.", "timestamp": 1619011213 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvazo8n", "score": -38, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1618996577 }, { "author": "BaalPteor", "id": "gvb04ok", "score": 29, "text": "Any? Regardless of circumstance? How so? Are you suggesting that, even if a black person is in the act of committing a capital crime, a white cop cannot shoot them because they owe them a pass? A pass to murder someone? If you are somehow suggesting that lethal force is never necessary, that’s a whole different discussion; the way you phrased your answer suggests that other ethnicities of cop shooting other ethnicities of criminal is okay, but the white/black combo is unacceptable.", "timestamp": 1618997020 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvb0wl1", "score": -6, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1618997779 }, { "author": "Not-KDA", "id": "gvb16z2", "score": 11, "text": "How do you fail to see how horrifically racist that is? 🙈", "timestamp": 1618998048 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvb4gle", "score": -3, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1619001018 } ]	[ "gvb5q46", "gvb6qk7", "gvbgkkp", "gvbgvkp", "gvbjngo" ]	[ "gvazo8n", "gvb04ok", "gvb0wl1", "gvb16z2", "gvb4gle" ]
CMV: The death of Makiyah Bryant is a poor example of police brutality and systemic racism in the US. The media is reporting the death of a black 16-year-old girl, Makiyah Bryant, by a white cop and associating it with the Chauvin verdict on the same day. The intent here is clear: to portray this as another incident of police brutality and systemic racism. However, shooting Makiyah Bryant was justified. She was lunging for another woman on the ground while swinging a kitchen knife. This is not the same as cops pepper spraying a black child a while back; Bryant was brandishing a lethal weapon with malicious intent. This is not the same as the cop who fired a handgun instead of a taser to detain a wanted man; an innocent citizen’s life was clearly in danger. And this is not the same as the cop who shot Adam Toledo; Bryant did not receive unclear instructions and was about to murder a citizen. The race and age of the victim make this all the more unfortunate, but claiming that this is a result of systemic racism or is an example of police brutality is inaccurate.	Do you think if she was white she would have been shot? --- I think she should have been shot even if she was white. --- Cool, but thats not what they asked. The question was "do you think she still would have been shot if she was white?" Edit: learn the difference between "would have been" and "should have been" lmao --- Less likely from a systemic point of view, but still would have been shot would be my answer. --- If you believe that she would have been less likely to be shot if she had been white, then her death is still part of a statistic that shows that black people are more likely be shot for something than their white counterparts would be for doing the same action. --- !delta But using this death to support this cause is absolutely terrible. You can make the argument that there is a link, but it’s a very weak one. --- The argument for systemic racism is usually based on statistics like these. The anecdotal stories are just the public face of it that get people riled up. --- What I’m trying to say is, it’s very difficult to attribute ALL black deaths by cops as a result of systemic racism. --- That is true. But systemic racism is a more abstract concept than you seem to think. Black death by cops happening more often, is a result of systemic racism. I’d argue that black deaths by cop CONTRIBUTE to systemic racism. Systemic racism doesn’t DIRECTLY result in anything, because it’s not a single thing or force: it is the cumulative result of millions upon millions of parts, small and large, and centuries of development. Let me use another example. Let’s say we have an Uncle Jimmy. He’s black. He grows up in the sixties. As hardworking as he is, he finds it difficult to find good jobs. He struggles to get an education. He is denied loans. This is all the direct result of explicit racism. Time goes on, and society moves forward a bit. Banks, schools, and employers are more egalitarian, if not progressive. Uncle Jimmy is very intelligent, but he isn’t able to pursue higher education, and has lost interest in it. He feels fulfilled at a somewhat well paying job as a floor manager in a nearby factory. As he gets older, his health starts to decline. Due to underlying genetic issues exacerbated by harmful fumes from his workplace, he develops lung cancer. He has ok insurance, but it’s not enough. The bank takes his car, but his family and community take care of him, and he manages to mostly stay afloat financially. The environmental conditions in his childhood neighborhood, however, don’t help. Fumes from old combustion engines, and waste have led to poor air and water quality. His health declines, and his family scrapes up enough for him to move into a nice retirement home, where he dies, surrounded by loved ones. Did systemic racism kill uncle Jimmy? If it exists, why did he die fulfilled? Here’s the thing. Historic inequity has made it so that racial and ethnic minorities are far more likely to be born into, forced into, and stay in poverty. It’s stripped those communities of their wealth. Sure, there exist wealthy minorities- plenty of them- and poor whites. But statistically, Jimmy was more likely to be born into an impoverished community, for no other reason than the color of his parents skin- and their parents, and theirs, ad infinitum. We know for a fact that this, again, STATISTICALLY, leads to poorer outcomes with regards to employability, long term financial stability and savings, as well as psychological, emotional, and physical health. Explicit racism prevented Jimmy from starting a long term career early- some people were lucky or persistent enough to overcome that, but not everyone does. But he worked hard and pushed through. But that means he got a financial start much later in life. It means things like education, and healthcare were less affordable. And later in life, while an employer may not be explicitly racist, they grew up surrounded by explicit racists and their media, meaning they may have chosen a similarly qualified applicant over him, purely because of the color of his skin, without even realizing it. This financial instability- and a lack of generational wealth- is not exclusive to black people, but they are more likely to experience it. This just compounds onto the first set of conditions. When Jimmy’s health begins to decline, and he is unable to detect and treat it early because of the aforementioned factors, his environment played a crucial role in making it worse. Now we know for a fact that poor people are more likely to experience the negative impacts of pollution, and we’ve already established that black people are more likely to live in poorer communities. Again, no individual force here, and no explicitly racist force, but the outcome is still injustice along racial lines. So in addition to everything else, Jimmy was more likely to be exposed to harmful pollutants, exacerbating conditions he was already predisposed to experiencing. Systemic racism did not kill uncle Jimmy. It did not prevent him from completing higher education, it did not cause him to lose access to healthcare like so many others do. But that’s not because systemic racism does not exist- systemic racism is not a singular force. Placing his death at the feet of systemic racism would not be entirely inappropriate: Because while it may not have killed him, it didn’t have to. Systemic racism is the series of events, set of forces, attitudes, and conditions that made it more difficult for Jimmy to overcome things in life purely because of the color of his skin and for no other reason- and made him more likely to HAVE to overcome them in the first place. Wealthy, college educated, influential black people still suffer from the effect of systemic racism. Poor, suffering white people do not. So where’s the disconnect? First of all, it’s not a contest. Secondly, and more importantly, systemic racism is not the only systemic injustice in this country- far from it- it just happens to be a prominent one due to the United States’ fairly unique history of racial conflict.	The officer didn't act according to the use of force continuum. --- According to the law the police officer needs credible evidence that the perpetrator is a danger to either the officer or those around him. To use deadly force. The dsnger has to be either lethal or "grave bodily injury". Not sure how you can possibly spin this situation so it doesnt apply. Cops carry guns for situations like this. --- Legal doesn't mean only way to deescalate a situation. --- You know when I started posting on this thread. That was before I watched the actual video. I just watched it (my first post after watching it). HOLY FUCKING SHIT! How on earth is this not justified. Did you watch the video? Please tell me you didn't. She was trying to stab another woman in the neck with a knife. Right in front of the cop. What is the cop supposed to do? "Hey you there. I strongly suggest you stop that assault with a deadly weapon this instant or I am going to have to give you a strongly worded reprimand"... "Yeah sure thing office" <SLASH>. Come on guys. Has sanity completely left the building? If a cop witnesses a black woman trying to murder another black woman. He is supposed to deescalate and put the victim in danger of death in the process. He may have saved her life. --- >and put the victim in danger of death in the process. I thought the point of shooting was that they were already in danger? I never said it couldn't escalate to where lethal force could be unambiguously justified. They're trained not to shoot first, ask questions later. This officer did not abide by that training. The officer might even still face disciplinary action or even termination of employment. --- I was opposed to the whole "cops should sacrifice their lives because that is what they signed up for". Because I thought it was madness that we would value the lives of a dangerous criminal over a police officer. But now we also want the cop to sacrifice the life of a victim too? If he did not shoot her. Then she could have continued on her quest. Which was to kill the other lady. She was literally trying to slash at her head with a knife when the cop shot her. If that is not a justified use of force I seriously don't know what is. --- Is the victim incapable of running or fighting until the officer can restrain the assailant? Was the officer not equipped with anything other than a firearm such as a taser? Could the officer have used empty hand takedown or control point hold tactics? Would verbally engaging have caught attention? The officer didn't try anything else and went straight to the extreme solution when in all likelihood was not absolutely necessary. We'll never know if was absolutely necessary in this case because of it. For all we know, a life was put to an end when it didn't need to be. --- The officer has a duty to protect the other womans life. If he deployed a taser and it failed. Which resulted in the other woman dying. He would be liable. Ok so it a crazed woman attacks you with a knife in front of a cop. You want the cop to be like "hey lets see how he handles it first". Does that sound like a reasonable response to you? This is absolute madness. I dont know about you but I want the cop to kill the person trying to kill me. --- >The officer has a duty to protect the other womans life. Police actually don't have an obligation to protect anyone's life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia If they wanted to, they could have saved both lives.	mvbr5s	CMV: The death of Makiyah Bryant is a poor example of police brutality and systemic racism in the US.	The media is reporting the death of a black 16-year-old girl, Makiyah Bryant, by a white cop and associating it with the Chauvin verdict on the same day. The intent here is clear: to portray this as another incident of police brutality and systemic racism. However, shooting Makiyah Bryant was justified. She was lunging for another woman on the ground while swinging a kitchen knife. This is not the same as cops pepper spraying a black child a while back; Bryant was brandishing a lethal weapon with malicious intent. This is not the same as the cop who fired a handgun instead of a taser to detain a wanted man; an innocent citizen’s life was clearly in danger. And this is not the same as the cop who shot Adam Toledo; Bryant did not receive unclear instructions and was about to murder a citizen. The race and age of the victim make this all the more unfortunate, but claiming that this is a result of systemic racism or is an example of police brutality is inaccurate.	KoreanStudentDoctor	9	9	[ { "author": "reineedshelp", "id": "gvb5q46", "score": -51, "text": "Do you think if she was white she would have been shot?", "timestamp": 1619002091 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvb6qk7", "score": 325, "text": "I think she should have been shot even if she was white.", "timestamp": 1619002927 }, { "author": "quesoandcats", "id": "gvbgkkp", "score": -43, "text": "Cool, but thats not what they asked. The question was \"do you think she still would have been shot if she was white?\"\n\nEdit: learn the difference between \"would have been\" and \"should have been\" lmao", "timestamp": 1619009525 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvbgvkp", "score": 123, "text": "Less likely from a systemic point of view, but still would have been shot would be my answer.", "timestamp": 1619009698 }, { "author": "Ocadioan", "id": "gvbjngo", "score": 70, "text": "If you believe that she would have been less likely to be shot if she had been white, then her death is still part of a statistic that shows that black people are more likely be shot for something than their white counterparts would be for doing the same action.", "timestamp": 1619011213 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvbkx64", "score": 58, "text": "!delta\n\nBut using this death to support this cause is absolutely terrible. You can make the argument that there is a link, but it’s a very weak one.", "timestamp": 1619011877 }, { "author": "Ocadioan", "id": "gvbmoa4", "score": 26, "text": "The argument for systemic racism is usually based on statistics like these. The anecdotal stories are just the public face of it that get people riled up.", "timestamp": 1619012764 }, { "author": "KoreanStudentDoctor", "id": "gvbpda2", "score": 58, "text": "What I’m trying to say is, it’s very difficult to attribute ALL black deaths by cops as a result of systemic racism.", "timestamp": 1619014075 }, { "author": "_grounded", "id": "gvi7hed", "score": 2, "text": "That is true. But systemic racism is a more abstract concept than you seem to think. \n\nBlack death by cops happening more often, is a result of systemic racism. I’d argue that black deaths by cop CONTRIBUTE to systemic racism. Systemic racism doesn’t DIRECTLY result in anything, because it’s not a single thing or force: it is the cumulative result of millions upon millions of parts, small and large, and centuries of development.\n\nLet me use another example.\n\nLet’s say we have an Uncle Jimmy. He’s black. He grows up in the sixties. As hardworking as he is, he finds it difficult to find good jobs. He struggles to get an education. He is denied loans. This is all the direct result of explicit racism. Time goes on, and society moves forward a bit. Banks, schools, and employers are more egalitarian, if not progressive. Uncle Jimmy is very intelligent, but he isn’t able to pursue higher education, and has lost interest in it. He feels fulfilled at a somewhat well paying job as a floor manager in a nearby factory. As he gets older, his health starts to decline. Due to underlying genetic issues exacerbated by harmful fumes from his workplace, he develops lung cancer. He has ok insurance, but it’s not enough. The bank takes his car, but his family and community take care of him, and he manages to mostly stay afloat financially. The environmental conditions in his childhood neighborhood, however, don’t help. Fumes from old combustion engines, and waste have led to poor air and water quality. His health declines, and his family scrapes up enough for him to move into a nice retirement home, where he dies, surrounded by loved ones. Did systemic racism kill uncle Jimmy? If it exists, why did he die fulfilled?\n\nHere’s the thing. \n\nHistoric inequity has made it so that racial and ethnic minorities are far more likely to be born into, forced into, and stay in poverty. It’s stripped those communities of their wealth. Sure, there exist wealthy minorities- plenty of them- and poor whites. But statistically, Jimmy was more likely to be born into an impoverished community, for no other reason than the color of his parents skin- and their parents, and theirs, ad infinitum. We know for a fact that this, again, STATISTICALLY, leads to poorer outcomes with regards to employability, long term financial stability and savings, as well as psychological, emotional, and physical health. \n\nExplicit racism prevented Jimmy from starting a long term career early- some people were lucky or persistent enough to overcome that, but not everyone does. But he worked hard and pushed through. But that means he got a financial start much later in life. It means things like education, and healthcare were less affordable. And later in life, while an employer may not be explicitly racist, they grew up surrounded by explicit racists and their media, meaning they may have chosen a similarly qualified applicant over him, purely because of the color of his skin, without even realizing it. This financial instability- and a lack of generational wealth- is not exclusive to black people, but they are more likely to experience it. This just compounds onto the first set of conditions. \n\nWhen Jimmy’s health begins to decline, and he is unable to detect and treat it early because of the aforementioned factors, his environment played a crucial role in making it worse. Now we know for a fact that poor people are more likely to experience the negative impacts of pollution, and we’ve already established that black people are more likely to live in poorer communities. Again, no individual force here, and no explicitly racist force, but the outcome is still injustice along racial lines. So in addition to everything else, Jimmy was more likely to be exposed to harmful pollutants, exacerbating conditions he was already predisposed to experiencing. \n\nSystemic racism did not kill uncle Jimmy. It did not prevent him from completing higher education, it did not cause him to lose access to healthcare like so many others do. But that’s not because systemic racism does not exist- systemic racism is not a singular force. Placing his death at the feet of systemic racism would not be entirely inappropriate:\n\nBecause while it may not have killed him, it didn’t have to. Systemic racism is the series of events, set of forces, attitudes, and conditions that made it more difficult for Jimmy to overcome things in life purely because of the color of his skin and for no other reason- and made him more likely to HAVE to overcome them in the first place. \n\nWealthy, college educated, influential black people still suffer from the effect of systemic racism. Poor, suffering white people do not. So where’s the disconnect? First of all, it’s not a contest. Secondly, and more importantly, systemic racism is not the only systemic injustice in this country- far from it- it just happens to be a prominent one due to the United States’ fairly unique history of racial conflict.", "timestamp": 1619134098 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvb1ekl", "score": -21, "text": "The officer didn't act according to the use of force continuum.", "timestamp": 1618998251 }, { "author": "barbodelli", "id": "gvb76ze", "score": 10, "text": "According to the law the police officer needs credible evidence that the perpetrator is a danger to either the officer or those around him. To use deadly force. The dsnger has to be either lethal or \"grave bodily injury\". Not sure how you can possibly spin this situation so it doesnt apply. \n\nCops carry guns for situations like this.", "timestamp": 1619003294 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvb88a9", "score": -5, "text": "Legal doesn't mean only way to deescalate a situation.", "timestamp": 1619004101 }, { "author": "barbodelli", "id": "gvb986w", "score": 20, "text": "You know when I started posting on this thread. That was before I watched the actual video. I just watched it (my first post after watching it).\n\nHOLY FUCKING SHIT! How on earth is this not justified. \n\nDid you watch the video? Please tell me you didn't.\n\nShe was trying to stab another woman in the neck with a knife. Right in front of the cop. What is the cop supposed to do? \"Hey you there. I strongly suggest you stop that assault with a deadly weapon this instant or I am going to have to give you a strongly worded reprimand\"... \"Yeah sure thing office\" <SLASH>. \n\nCome on guys. Has sanity completely left the building? \n\n\nIf a cop witnesses a black woman trying to murder another black woman. He is supposed to deescalate and put the victim in danger of death in the process. He may have saved her life.", "timestamp": 1619004840 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvb9xg1", "score": -5, "text": "\n>and put the victim in danger of death in the process.\n\nI thought the point of shooting was that they were already in danger?\n\nI never said it couldn't escalate to where lethal force could be unambiguously justified. They're trained not to shoot first, ask questions later. This officer did not abide by that training. The officer might even still face disciplinary action or even termination of employment.", "timestamp": 1619005342 }, { "author": "barbodelli", "id": "gvbaqrt", "score": 15, "text": "I was opposed to the whole \"cops should sacrifice their lives because that is what they signed up for\". Because I thought it was madness that we would value the lives of a dangerous criminal over a police officer. But now we also want the cop to sacrifice the life of a victim too?\n\nIf he did not shoot her. Then she could have continued on her quest. Which was to kill the other lady. She was literally trying to slash at her head with a knife when the cop shot her. If that is not a justified use of force I seriously don't know what is.", "timestamp": 1619005908 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvbb8v7", "score": -7, "text": "Is the victim incapable of running or fighting until the officer can restrain the assailant? Was the officer not equipped with anything other than a firearm such as a taser? Could the officer have used empty hand takedown or control point hold tactics? Would verbally engaging have caught attention?\n\nThe officer didn't try anything else and went straight to the extreme solution when in all likelihood was not absolutely necessary. We'll never know if was absolutely necessary in this case because of it. For all we know, a life was put to an end when it didn't need to be.", "timestamp": 1619006246 }, { "author": "barbodelli", "id": "gvbbtt7", "score": 7, "text": "The officer has a duty to protect the other womans life. If he deployed a taser and it failed. Which resulted in the other woman dying. He would be liable. \n\nOk so it a crazed woman attacks you with a knife in front of a cop. You want the cop to be like \"hey lets see how he handles it first\". Does that sound like a reasonable response to you? This is absolute madness.\n\nI dont know about you but I want the cop to kill the person trying to kill me.", "timestamp": 1619006638 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gvbcbtm", "score": -1, "text": ">The officer has a duty to protect the other womans life.\n\nPolice actually don't have an obligation to protect anyone's life.\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia\n\nIf they wanted to, they could have saved both lives.", "timestamp": 1619006966 } ]	[ "gvb5q46", "gvb6qk7", "gvbgkkp", "gvbgvkp", "gvbjngo", "gvbkx64", "gvbmoa4", "gvbpda2", "gvi7hed" ]	[ "gvb1ekl", "gvb76ze", "gvb88a9", "gvb986w", "gvb9xg1", "gvbaqrt", "gvbb8v7", "gvbbtt7", "gvbcbtm" ]
CMV: Racism against white people is fundamentally different than racism against minorities and should be treated as such. Racism against minorities carries a historical context and is often systematic. Racism against white people doesn't have these characteristics. A good example of what I mean is that calling a white person "cracker" is nowhere near as bad as calling a black person the n word. The latter carries centuries of discrimination that the former does not. I think the argument that "racism against whites is the same as racism against minorities" assumes that whites and minorities are on the same playing field, which simply isn't true. I understand this is a controversial view on Reddit, but I hope we can still have a civil discussion.	but you understand that it's racism, right? I think you're trying to say that it's "not as bad as racism against blacks", but why is it in a different category? it's hatred based on skin tone. isn't that an evil ideology to believe in? how is it not? also, it's almost as if you're implying that black people are more sensitive than white people if you're saying that saying "cracker" isn't as bad as the n word when "cracker" means "a person that enslaves somebody". is "person that enslaves somebody" not a dreadful thing to call a person in 2018? honestly, when I think of a black person being racist against a white person I think of kind of a hypothetical black nazi germany where hitler was a black guy and the jews were "the white people" - it creates that situation because although it's not being enforced (and neither is racism in general, mind you), it is the approach and the attitude that is being used against somebody --- Of course calling a white person cracker is racist. It's an insult solely based on skin color. I'm not saying black people are "more sensitive"; I'm saying the n word is more racist against a black person than cracker is against a white person. Calling a black person the n word is more than an insult: it reflects institutionalized racism in our society. --- > I'm saying the n word is more racist against a black person than cracker is against a white person. I don't actually understand how it is necessarily "more racist" - you mean "it offends them more"? that's not "it's more racist" - they're equally racist - one of the labels is "slave" and the other is "(evil) slave master". it might hurt their feelings more because it's based on something that absolutely happened to the people of their race in that country, and the vast majority of white people in the US during the slavery age weren't slave masters (most of them were poor farmers) so clearly it wouldn't apply to them as directly. however, it, again, doesn't go to show that it is a "more racist" word because they're both negative and racial --- Obviously there's no rubric for racism, but I think the can still judge that somethings are more racist than others. For example, we can say denying a black person housing is more racist than calling them the n word. Similarly, I would argue calling a black person the n word is more racist than calling a white person cracker (although more subtle than the last example). I guess what I mean by "more racist" is more impactful. I get why that would be vague. --- I wouldn't say that having more of an impact means that something is more racist. It just means that the particular racist act has more of an impact on people. I don't think terms like these come in degrees. For example, think of an act of theft. Stealing a paperclip from someone isn't less of an act of theft than stealing a car from someone. Both qualify as theft and the different impact it has on the victim doesn't make one more theft-like or whatever than the other. This is not to say that the two acts of theft, or racism, should not be treated differently. This is just saying that they should both equally be called theft/racism. I think your resistance to this view is caused by your impression that calling things equally racist means that they must be treated the same.	Institutions and systems don't have free will. A form or formality is not racist - the one who pushes it forward is. --- So are you saying institutionalized racism doesn't exist? --- Yes. Wasn't that clear? If a cop arrested you for drinking at the white only fountain then he is racist for up holding such a statute - not the law itself. Saying, "it's just the way it is", or, "I have to, it's my job", are cop-outs - it's a lie that you have bought into - don't believe it. --- I completely disagree with you. A law saying "black people can't drink at white people water fountains" is objectively institutionalized racism --- Then you're wrong. Racism is an act of will. A piece of paper doesn't have will. I mean, maybe you get a paper cut but that's not because of your race.	94miz7	CMV: Racism against white people is fundamentally different than racism against minorities and should be treated as such.	Racism against minorities carries a historical context and is often systematic. Racism against white people doesn't have these characteristics. A good example of what I mean is that calling a white person "cracker" is nowhere near as bad as calling a black person the n word. The latter carries centuries of discrimination that the former does not. I think the argument that "racism against whites is the same as racism against minorities" assumes that whites and minorities are on the same playing field, which simply isn't true. I understand this is a controversial view on Reddit, but I hope we can still have a civil discussion.	perfectbluu	5	5	[ { "author": "Dont-censor-me-guvna", "id": "e3m42c6", "score": 13, "text": "but you understand that it's racism, right? I think you're trying to say that it's \"not as bad as racism against blacks\", but why is it in a different category? it's hatred based on skin tone. isn't that an evil ideology to believe in? how is it not? also, it's almost as if you're implying that black people are more sensitive than white people if you're saying that saying \"cracker\" isn't as bad as the n word when \"cracker\" means \"a person that enslaves somebody\". is \"person that enslaves somebody\" not a dreadful thing to call a person in 2018? \n\nhonestly, when I think of a black person being racist against a white person I think of kind of a hypothetical black nazi germany where hitler was a black guy and the jews were \"the white people\" - it creates that situation because although it's not being enforced (and neither is racism in general, mind you), it is the approach and the attitude that is being used against somebody ", "timestamp": 1533418575 }, { "author": "perfectbluu", "id": "e3m4ffn", "score": -3, "text": "Of course calling a white person cracker is racist. It's an insult solely based on skin color. I'm not saying black people are \"more sensitive\"; I'm saying the n word is more racist against a black person than cracker is against a white person. Calling a black person the n word is more than an insult: it reflects institutionalized racism in our society.", "timestamp": 1533418956 }, { "author": "Dont-censor-me-guvna", "id": "e3m4ntd", "score": 7, "text": "> I'm saying the n word is more racist against a black person than cracker is against a white person. \n\nI don't actually understand how it is necessarily \"more racist\" - you mean \"it offends them more\"? that's not \"it's more racist\" - they're equally racist - one of the labels is \"slave\" and the other is \"(evil) slave master\". it might hurt their feelings more because it's based on something that absolutely happened to the people of their race in that country, and the vast majority of white people in the US during the slavery age weren't slave masters (most of them were poor farmers) so clearly it wouldn't apply to them as directly. however, it, again, doesn't go to show that it is a \"more racist\" word because they're both negative and racial", "timestamp": 1533419194 }, { "author": "perfectbluu", "id": "e3m4yhr", "score": 1, "text": "Obviously there's no rubric for racism, but I think the can still judge that somethings are more racist than others. For example, we can say denying a black person housing is more racist than calling them the n word. Similarly, I would argue calling a black person the n word is more racist than calling a white person cracker (although more subtle than the last example).\n\nI guess what I mean by \"more racist\" is more impactful. I get why that would be vague.", "timestamp": 1533419504 }, { "author": "eccophonics", "id": "e3m5syk", "score": 5, "text": "I wouldn't say that having more of an impact means that something is more racist. It just means that the particular racist act has more of an impact on people. I don't think terms like these come in degrees. For example, think of an act of theft. Stealing a paperclip from someone isn't less of an act of theft than stealing a car from someone. Both qualify as theft and the different impact it has on the victim doesn't make one more theft-like or whatever than the other. \n\nThis is not to say that the two acts of theft, or racism, should not be treated differently. This is just saying that they should both equally be called theft/racism. I think your resistance to this view is caused by your impression that calling things equally racist means that they must be treated the same.", "timestamp": 1533420366 } ]	[ { "author": "SimpleTaught", "id": "e3m4j83", "score": 1, "text": "Institutions and systems don't have free will. A form or formality is not racist - the one who pushes it forward is.", "timestamp": 1533419064 }, { "author": "perfectbluu", "id": "e3m527s", "score": 1, "text": "So are you saying institutionalized racism doesn't exist?", "timestamp": 1533419610 }, { "author": "SimpleTaught", "id": "e3m5dmw", "score": 0, "text": "Yes. Wasn't that clear? If a cop arrested you for drinking at the white only fountain then he is racist for up holding such a statute - not the law itself. Saying, \"it's just the way it is\", or, \"I have to, it's my job\", are cop-outs - it's a lie that you have bought into - don't believe it.", "timestamp": 1533419934 }, { "author": "perfectbluu", "id": "e3m5juy", "score": 2, "text": "I completely disagree with you. A law saying \"black people can't drink at white people water fountains\" is objectively institutionalized racism", "timestamp": 1533420104 }, { "author": "SimpleTaught", "id": "e3m5uq7", "score": 1, "text": "Then you're wrong. Racism is an act of will. A piece of paper doesn't have will. I mean, maybe you get a paper cut but that's not because of your race.", "timestamp": 1533420415 } ]	[ "e3m42c6", "e3m4ffn", "e3m4ntd", "e3m4yhr", "e3m5syk" ]	[ "e3m4j83", "e3m527s", "e3m5dmw", "e3m5juy", "e3m5uq7" ]
CMV: Whether people are born male or female, they should be free to dress and act absolutely however they want. Changing your pronoun to be "in line" with these actions, however, is ultimately harmful to society. The implication that dressing or acting differently than is typical for your "gender" requires a different pronoun is simply adding more stereotypes to the labels "male" and "female." As a queer woman, I have spent much of my life feeling like I didn't necessarily dress or act the same as the other girls around me. I have many of what are typically considered very masculine characteristics. I never wanted to or allowed myself to feel like my pronoun somehow defined who I had to be or what I had to act like. I figured women can do or be anything. I think it would ultimately be more beneficial to youth growing up to create a society in which your pronoun is not associated with a way to act or even feel. For me, watching those who were born men put on makeup and feminine clothing and say they now "identify as women" is now associating those attributes to the female persona, though they are attributes I do not hold. Am I less of a woman for lacking them? What does that even mean - identifying as a woman? Will people think differently of me because of my pronoun? If so, stop. My "she" doesn't define me and I don't think others' pronouns should define them as we let them do. I really wish that when people called me "she" it really only referred to my sex and didn't put all these other implications on me. I want to be clear I am completely open to people dressing, acting, and thinking outside of what society has defined as normative for you (as evidence by my own life). What I think needs to change, though, is society's associations with our gender pronouns as opposed to people changing their own and thereby reaffirming all of the stereotypes we've associated with them. Edit: My view has changed! I realized that while I don’t feel it, some people have a very strong sense of gender identity which is why their pronouns are so important to them. Does this strong sense of identity create more of a divide between the genders? How much of it is socialized? Like though there are tons of questions to be asked - asking people to not change their pronouns if they do feel so passionately about it is just not really effective. After all of the discussion, I think more of what I wanted was simply lowered expectations of what it means to be male or female (no matter cis or trans) Thanks to everyone who gave really articulate arguments without bashing me for my views. I would love to keep discussing the questions I posed in my edit if anyone wants.	Your title says people should be allowed to do x, but that doing y is ultimately bad for society. But at no point do you say why it is bad for society in your post. The thing is, not everyone is you. You do not have to identify as a woman, you absolutely can be a queer, non binary person who dresses how they like, but others do not feel so. There are others who care very deeply about identifying as a male or female, they feel it is very important to who they are as a person. Being non binary is a choice and a fact for you. But being male or female is a choice and a fact as well, I simply cannot see how acceptance of that is harmful to society. --- Identifying as something very much means you are aligning with whatever characteristics that the thing you are identifying with has. Or else what would be the point of the label? By forcing a person to choose some identity so that society can feel comfortable describing them, forces them to align themselves with characteristics they may not actually want, whether that be female or non-binary. I am saying that people should judge people based on who they are as opposed to what label they are using and that we should create a world in which we don't take these labels and use them against people. --- >Identifying as something very much means you are aligning with whatever characteristics that the thing you are identifying with has. Yes, but your point of confusion is around what those characteristics are. I'm a trans woman. Dresses and makeup and the like aren't characteristics of women. They're characteristics that society encourages women towards, but they're external to her identity as a woman. The characteristic I have in common with women are my own self awareness that I'm a woman. That's pretty much it. Everything else is window dressing. --- I think then I am confused by what exactly it means to have self awareness that you are a woman. My saying "i'm a woman" whats that meant to mean to everyone else? --- You describe yourself as a woman. Even if you get on well with men, and prefer their company to women, in a room of men, you'll still not be a man. You'll still know that you're a woman. In a room full of women, even if you are the odd one out, and nothing like the other women in the room, you'll know that you're all women and that's what you have in common with them. My gender identity is the same as yours. In a room of men, I'm not one of them. In a room of women, I am. The rest of the world doesn't always recognise that, and I may not be accepted as the way I see myself, but still, that's the way I'm wired on the inside. That's what gender identity is. Group affinity. --- what does that mean I am not one of them? am i not human? do I not have a brain like them? why am i so different? because of a higher pitched voice and boobs? i'm really asking. --- Hey, so I used to have exactly the same sort of issue as you with the idea of what it means to be transgender. Eventually I became convinced that there's something that some people experience which I don't in terms of an internal sense of gender. The fact that I don't experience it, and that it's not externally visible, means that the only evidence I have for its existence is my trust in their testimony. But I think it's better to trust their testimony (and maybe be wrong) than it is to insist on only believing things that I have concrete proof of (and maybe be wrong).	I didn’t transition because society expected it of me, I transitioned because I’m a woman. Regardless of what you call it I wanted a body that wasn’t the one I was born with, full stop. NOT calling me woman is the harmful thing to do in this situation. --- okay. I understand that my solution may not be as practical - as in going by a pronoun that isn't that one you present could be harmful because of society's reaction. But i'm saying what is so wrong with the pronoun you were born with if it didn't have all of the implications tied to it? You wouldn't even know what a "woman" was if you were not socialized into knowing. --- I would still know I wanted a body that some people had, but I didn’t. Even if we just had one name for all genders I would still want a body that was the opposite of the one I was born with, what you call it is secondary. --- Kind of agreeing with OP. If your desired/mentally natural body is what you think makes you not a man are you willing to go the step to surgically change that? If not aren't you simply doing what OP describes and just conforming to gender stereotypes to compensate for being born the wrong sex? I'll call you whatever you want and I'm not looking to take anyones rights or dignity away, but I do think it's a little hypocritical to both decide you're not what you're born as but then also not be willing to actually change anything (cost prohibiting I understand) biological about yourself to match what you believe to be your real sex or gender. --- I just had an 8 hour surgery to alter the way my face looks, I think I’m taking plenty of steps here. Also neither one of you have demonstrated how using preferred pronouns is harmful. What GUI are talking about is gender roles and expectations which isn’t the same thing as gender identity. --- why change your pronoun if there wasn't some level of expectation to the label? i think changing it can be harmful because it is playing into all of these expectations of what the pronoun is meant to represent. If the pronoun is ONLY representing sex and a person is changing their body or wants to change their body then by all means use the pronoun because thats exactly what its meant for - to describe sex characteristics. but those changing their pronoun simply because the label means something different to them (and maybe its no one), i think in that instance the label's definition needs to be changed. --- You still aren't telling us what harm this is doing. What you are talking about is gender roles and expectations, which would be something along the lines of "Only girls can like the color pink and play with dolls", which I think most people agree is stupid and we should encourage people to do whatever they want. That has nothing to do with someone preferring one pronoun over another. Some people who switch pronouns don't do anything that is "typical" for their preferred pronoun, there are plenty of super butch/masculine trans women and plenty of super feminine trans men.	a851eu	CMV: Whether people are born male or female, they should be free to dress and act absolutely however they want. Changing your pronoun to be "in line" with these actions, however, is ultimately harmful to society.	The implication that dressing or acting differently than is typical for your "gender" requires a different pronoun is simply adding more stereotypes to the labels "male" and "female." As a queer woman, I have spent much of my life feeling like I didn't necessarily dress or act the same as the other girls around me. I have many of what are typically considered very masculine characteristics. I never wanted to or allowed myself to feel like my pronoun somehow defined who I had to be or what I had to act like. I figured women can do or be anything. I think it would ultimately be more beneficial to youth growing up to create a society in which your pronoun is not associated with a way to act or even feel. For me, watching those who were born men put on makeup and feminine clothing and say they now "identify as women" is now associating those attributes to the female persona, though they are attributes I do not hold. Am I less of a woman for lacking them? What does that even mean - identifying as a woman? Will people think differently of me because of my pronoun? If so, stop. My "she" doesn't define me and I don't think others' pronouns should define them as we let them do. I really wish that when people called me "she" it really only referred to my sex and didn't put all these other implications on me. I want to be clear I am completely open to people dressing, acting, and thinking outside of what society has defined as normative for you (as evidence by my own life). What I think needs to change, though, is society's associations with our gender pronouns as opposed to people changing their own and thereby reaffirming all of the stereotypes we've associated with them. Edit: My view has changed! I realized that while I don’t feel it, some people have a very strong sense of gender identity which is why their pronouns are so important to them. Does this strong sense of identity create more of a divide between the genders? How much of it is socialized? Like though there are tons of questions to be asked - asking people to not change their pronouns if they do feel so passionately about it is just not really effective. After all of the discussion, I think more of what I wanted was simply lowered expectations of what it means to be male or female (no matter cis or trans) Thanks to everyone who gave really articulate arguments without bashing me for my views. I would love to keep discussing the questions I posed in my edit if anyone wants.	mybadwolf	7	7	[ { "author": "gurneyhallack", "id": "ec80hqm", "score": 29, "text": "Your title says people should be allowed to do x, but that doing y is ultimately bad for society. But at no point do you say why it is bad for society in your post. The thing is, not everyone is you. You do not have to identify as a woman, you absolutely can be a queer, non binary person who dresses how they like, but others do not feel so. There are others who care very deeply about identifying as a male or female, they feel it is very important to who they are as a person. Being non binary is a choice and a fact for you. But being male or female is a choice and a fact as well, I simply cannot see how acceptance of that is harmful to society. ", "timestamp": 1545357153 }, { "author": "mybadwolf", "id": "ec80tvk", "score": -1, "text": "Identifying as something very much means you are aligning with whatever characteristics that the thing you are identifying with has. Or else what would be the point of the label? By forcing a person to choose some identity so that society can feel comfortable describing them, forces them to align themselves with characteristics they may not actually want, whether that be female or non-binary. I am saying that people should judge people based on who they are as opposed to what label they are using and that we should create a world in which we don't take these labels and use them against people.", "timestamp": 1545357454 }, { "author": "cyronius", "id": "ec81ul8", "score": 21, "text": ">Identifying as something very much means you are aligning with whatever characteristics that the thing you are identifying with has. \n\nYes, but your point of confusion is around what those characteristics are. I'm a trans woman. Dresses and makeup and the like aren't characteristics of women. They're characteristics that society encourages women towards, but they're external to her identity as a woman. \n\nThe characteristic I have in common with women are my own self awareness that I'm a woman. That's pretty much it. Everything else is window dressing.", "timestamp": 1545358381 }, { "author": "mybadwolf", "id": "ec82qee", "score": 2, "text": "I think then I am confused by what exactly it means to have self awareness that you are a woman. My saying \"i'm a woman\" whats that meant to mean to everyone else?", "timestamp": 1545359169 }, { "author": "cyronius", "id": "ec82zia", "score": 18, "text": "You describe yourself as a woman. Even if you get on well with men, and prefer their company to women, in a room of men, you'll still not be a man. You'll still know that you're a woman. In a room full of women, even if you are the odd one out, and nothing like the other women in the room, you'll know that you're all women and that's what you have in common with them. \n\nMy gender identity is the same as yours. In a room of men, I'm not one of them. In a room of women, I am. The rest of the world doesn't always recognise that, and I may not be accepted as the way I see myself, but still, that's the way I'm wired on the inside. That's what gender identity is.\n\nGroup affinity. ", "timestamp": 1545359393 }, { "author": "mybadwolf", "id": "ec841vm", "score": 2, "text": "what does that mean I am not one of them? am i not human? do I not have a brain like them? why am i so different? because of a higher pitched voice and boobs? i'm really asking.", "timestamp": 1545360356 }, { "author": "Salanmander", "id": "ec87wq6", "score": 25, "text": "Hey, so I used to have exactly the same sort of issue as you with the idea of what it means to be transgender. Eventually I became convinced that there's something that some people experience which I don't in terms of an internal sense of gender. The fact that I don't experience it, and that it's not externally visible, means that the only evidence I have for its existence is my trust in their testimony. But I think it's better to trust their testimony (and maybe be wrong) than it is to insist on only believing things that I have concrete proof of (and maybe be wrong).", "timestamp": 1545363934 } ]	[ { "author": "hark_a_tranner", "id": "ec7zrkj", "score": 17, "text": "I didn’t transition because society expected it of me, I transitioned because I’m a woman. Regardless of what you call it I wanted a body that wasn’t the one I was born with, full stop.\n\nNOT calling me woman is the harmful thing to do in this situation.", "timestamp": 1545356504 }, { "author": "mybadwolf", "id": "ec803o9", "score": -1, "text": "okay. I understand that my solution may not be as practical - as in going by a pronoun that isn't that one you present could be harmful because of society's reaction. But i'm saying what is so wrong with the pronoun you were born with if it didn't have all of the implications tied to it? You wouldn't even know what a \"woman\" was if you were not socialized into knowing. ", "timestamp": 1545356802 }, { "author": "hark_a_tranner", "id": "ec80j4s", "score": 13, "text": "I would still know I wanted a body that some people had, but I didn’t. Even if we just had one name for all genders I would still want a body that was the opposite of the one I was born with, what you call it is secondary.", "timestamp": 1545357189 }, { "author": "Slenderpman", "id": "ec81692", "score": -5, "text": "Kind of agreeing with OP. If your desired/mentally natural body is what you think makes you not a man are you willing to go the step to surgically change that? If not aren't you simply doing what OP describes and just conforming to gender stereotypes to compensate for being born the wrong sex? \n\nI'll call you whatever you want and I'm not looking to take anyones rights or dignity away, but I do think it's a little hypocritical to both decide you're not what you're born as but then also not be willing to actually change anything (cost prohibiting I understand) biological about yourself to match what you believe to be your real sex or gender.", "timestamp": 1545357771 }, { "author": "hark_a_tranner", "id": "ec81jbs", "score": 9, "text": "I just had an 8 hour surgery to alter the way my face looks, I think I’m taking plenty of steps here.\n\nAlso neither one of you have demonstrated how using preferred pronouns is harmful. What GUI are talking about is gender roles and expectations which isn’t the same thing as gender identity.", "timestamp": 1545358099 }, { "author": "mybadwolf", "id": "ec84ppi", "score": 1, "text": "why change your pronoun if there wasn't some level of expectation to the label? i think changing it can be harmful because it is playing into all of these expectations of what the pronoun is meant to represent. If the pronoun is ONLY representing sex and a person is changing their body or wants to change their body then by all means use the pronoun because thats exactly what its meant for - to describe sex characteristics. but those changing their pronoun simply because the label means something different to them (and maybe its no one), i think in that instance the label's definition needs to be changed. ", "timestamp": 1545360970 }, { "author": "hark_a_tranner", "id": "ec850r8", "score": 5, "text": "You still aren't telling us what harm this is doing. \n\nWhat you are talking about is gender roles and expectations, which would be something along the lines of \"Only girls can like the color pink and play with dolls\", which I think most people agree is stupid and we should encourage people to do whatever they want.\n\nThat has nothing to do with someone preferring one pronoun over another. Some people who switch pronouns don't do anything that is \"typical\" for their preferred pronoun, there are plenty of super butch/masculine trans women and plenty of super feminine trans men.", "timestamp": 1545361256 } ]	[ "ec80hqm", "ec80tvk", "ec81ul8", "ec82qee", "ec82zia", "ec841vm", "ec87wq6" ]	[ "ec7zrkj", "ec803o9", "ec80j4s", "ec81692", "ec81jbs", "ec84ppi", "ec850r8" ]
CMV: Men and Women are not equal and they shouldn't be. This might be a fairly unpopular opinion and I might seem to be like a critter from stone age but I believe that the two are not equal. I believe that men and women are different and couldn't be compared to each other. Comparing them would be like comparing apples and oranges. Saying that they are equal would be like saying 1kg is equal to 1km. In the name of feminism trying to bring the women at par with men is completely unreasonable. Both of them have their own roles to play in a family and the society. Historically, women used to look after the family and kids while men used to go out to earn bread and toast. Women's work in no way was inferior to that of men. I am not against women rights, education or their empowerment. I am a strong believer of their empowerment. But to achieve it, they shouldn't change their role as nurturer of children or caretaker of the family. [Working mohers risk damaging child's prospects](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-30342/Working-mothers-risk-damaging-childs-prospects.html) Mother's care for child is of extreme importance and I don't think how anyone can deny it. But if mother has to work for some reason then I think that father must stay to take care of child. Something is better than nothing. Even speaking biologically, men and women were not made equals. Women have an entire different set of organs from that of men. Women's physiology is wee different from that of men. And, infact, women are more prone to certain diseases than men are. For example, UTI. [Why are urinary tract infections more common in women?](http://kidney.org.au/your-kidneys/detect/urinary-tract-infections/why-are-urinary-tract-infections-more-common-in-women) So shouldn't we humans, to achieve equality among the two sexes, try to alter their anatomy and physiology? (Sarcasm) To end it, I would reiterate that in no way is either sex inferior to the other. Men shouldn't oppress women. And women shouldn't try to compete with men. It is not equality we need. It is change of perspective we need. We need to aim our society to a state where both sexes are respected, none feels inferior to the other, and where they cooperate with each other. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	I think you are arguing against something that doesn't actually exist. Literally no one thinks that men and women are _equivalent_. Equivalency would be "apples to apples". The question on hand about men and women is whether they are both "good fruit", worthy of equal representation in the salad. While I believe that both parents should nurture their child and that aside from the health benefits of breast milk, that it doesn't matter particularly much which parent in a male/female two parent family is home with the child or which is the primary caregiver, the rest of what you see is pretty identical to what people mean by "equal", you just don't seem to think that the word is right. The question of equality is about things like equal access to jobs, equal access to respect, power, opportunity - to be evaluated on merit rather then prejudice and so on. It's not about "being the same", it's about _having access that is equal using equal criteria_. Why shouldn't women compete with men? Men compete with men, why shouldn't women? Men compete with women...why shouldn't women compete with men? Competition really exists in the world, why would you cut off women from participation in it if you _don't think men should oppress women_? --- >The question of equality is about things like equal access to jobs, equal access to respect, power, opportunity - to be evaluated on merit rather then prejudice and so on. It's not about "being the same", it's about having access that is equal using equal criteria. Δ That I have to agree with. For hundreds of years women had been denied equal access to respect, power and opportunity. I feel ashamed to accept that the society I come from is still to some extent not much different from the bygone days. It's really about equal access to power, respect and opportunity. But I also believe that in the name of making them equal in these aspects there has been great misuse of feminism. >Why shouldn't women compete with men? Men compete with men, why shouldn't women? Men compete with women...why shouldn't women compete with men? Competition really exists in the world, why would you cut off women from participation in it if you don't think men should oppress women? I think that there shouldn't be competition. I somehow believe that competition is between a superior and an inferior. When no one is superior to the other, what is the need of competition? For example, lets say A is an artist and B is an actor. Both of them are different and no one is superior to the other. Why should they compete with each other? And on what parameters should they compete with each other? --- Without competition there is no improvement. Even self improvement is you competing with yourself and your prior performance in something. Additionally resources are finite and when two people attempt to get the same resources they will compete for them. So an actor and an artist may not compete for the same jobs, but they may for the same doctors appointment slot, or apple in the supermarket, etc. But the parameters they are talking about are two people going for the same job slot. There is only one slot so only one person can get the job, which means there has to be competition between all applicants even if there is no apparent one that is superior or inferior.	The issue with your view is that, no matter how much you say that "men's work" and "women's work" are equivalent in value, society has decided that men's work is much more valuable than women's. A man can earn bread for himself, even if he doesn't have a wife. If a woman is supposed to be a nurturer of children, she needs a husband to do so. This means that women have to get married, to both have a child to nurture and also to have someone provide for them. This gives men a lot of power over women. You can say that men shouldn't oppress women, but the fact of the matter is, the society you want will oppress women by it's vary nature, and will provide men with ample opportunities to further oppress women. --- >The issue with your view is that, no matter how much you say that "men's work" and "women's work" are equivalent in value, society has decided that men's work is much more valuable than women's. Yes, I agree with you that the society has decided that men's work is much more valuable. And this is what I want to be changed in the society. It is the perspective that must change and not the work they do. For example, in the country I come from, some filthy people believe that women should be clothed modestly and should stay covered to avoid getting molested. So should we change the women's clothes or should we change the perspective of the society? Well, the answer will always be perspective. >A man can earn bread for himself, even if he doesn't have a wife. If a woman is supposed to be a nurturer of children, she needs a husband to do so. I agree with you in that. And that is the reason I am not against women getting educated and empowered. I say that they must not change their work as nurturer but if the need be (like having no one to look after, or having a husband die) they must take it to themselves to earn their daily bread. --- None of that changes the fact that this gives men a lot of power over women, both in terms of political power (since running a country doesn't sound like something women should do) and actual power (women have to rely on their husband for sustenance, which means divorce is a dangerous idea, which means men can afford to be dicks to them).	86xvor	CMV: Men and Women are not equal and they shouldn't be.	This might be a fairly unpopular opinion and I might seem to be like a critter from stone age but I believe that the two are not equal. I believe that men and women are different and couldn't be compared to each other. Comparing them would be like comparing apples and oranges. Saying that they are equal would be like saying 1kg is equal to 1km. In the name of feminism trying to bring the women at par with men is completely unreasonable. Both of them have their own roles to play in a family and the society. Historically, women used to look after the family and kids while men used to go out to earn bread and toast. Women's work in no way was inferior to that of men. I am not against women rights, education or their empowerment. I am a strong believer of their empowerment. But to achieve it, they shouldn't change their role as nurturer of children or caretaker of the family. [Working mohers risk damaging child's prospects](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-30342/Working-mothers-risk-damaging-childs-prospects.html) Mother's care for child is of extreme importance and I don't think how anyone can deny it. But if mother has to work for some reason then I think that father must stay to take care of child. Something is better than nothing. Even speaking biologically, men and women were not made equals. Women have an entire different set of organs from that of men. Women's physiology is wee different from that of men. And, infact, women are more prone to certain diseases than men are. For example, UTI. [Why are urinary tract infections more common in women?](http://kidney.org.au/your-kidneys/detect/urinary-tract-infections/why-are-urinary-tract-infections-more-common-in-women) So shouldn't we humans, to achieve equality among the two sexes, try to alter their anatomy and physiology? (Sarcasm) To end it, I would reiterate that in no way is either sex inferior to the other. Men shouldn't oppress women. And women shouldn't try to compete with men. It is not equality we need. It is change of perspective we need. We need to aim our society to a state where both sexes are respected, none feels inferior to the other, and where they cooperate with each other. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	The_Almighty_Bob	3	3	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dw8nyx5", "score": 17, "text": "I think you are arguing against something that doesn't actually exist.\n\nLiterally no one thinks that men and women are _equivalent_. Equivalency would be \"apples to apples\". The question on hand about men and women is whether they are both \"good fruit\", worthy of equal representation in the salad.\n\nWhile I believe that both parents should nurture their child and that aside from the health benefits of breast milk, that it doesn't matter particularly much which parent in a male/female two parent family is home with the child or which is the primary caregiver, the rest of what you see is pretty identical to what people mean by \"equal\", you just don't seem to think that the word is right.\n\nThe question of equality is about things like equal access to jobs, equal access to respect, power, opportunity - to be evaluated on merit rather then prejudice and so on. It's not about \"being the same\", it's about _having access that is equal using equal criteria_. \n\nWhy shouldn't women compete with men? Men compete with men, why shouldn't women? Men compete with women...why shouldn't women compete with men? Competition really exists in the world, why would you cut off women from participation in it if you _don't think men should oppress women_? ", "timestamp": 1521944281 }, { "author": "The_Almighty_Bob", "id": "dw8p0d4", "score": -1, "text": ">The question of equality is about things like equal access to jobs, equal access to respect, power, opportunity - to be evaluated on merit rather then prejudice and so on. It's not about \"being the same\", it's about having access that is equal using equal criteria.\n\nΔ\n\nThat I have to agree with. For hundreds of years women had been denied equal access to respect, power and opportunity. I feel ashamed to accept that the society I come from is still to some extent not much different from the bygone days. It's really about equal access to power, respect and opportunity. But I also believe that in the name of making them equal in these aspects there has been great misuse of feminism.\n\n>Why shouldn't women compete with men? Men compete with men, why shouldn't women? Men compete with women...why shouldn't women compete with men? Competition really exists in the world, why would you cut off women from participation in it if you don't think men should oppress women?\n\nI think that there shouldn't be competition. I somehow believe that competition is between a superior and an inferior. When no one is superior to the other, what is the need of competition?\n\nFor example, lets say A is an artist and B is an actor. Both of them are different and no one is superior to the other. Why should they compete with each other? And on what parameters should they compete with each other?", "timestamp": 1521945568 }, { "author": "cdb03b", "id": "dw8q9sx", "score": 2, "text": "Without competition there is no improvement. Even self improvement is you competing with yourself and your prior performance in something. \n\nAdditionally resources are finite and when two people attempt to get the same resources they will compete for them. So an actor and an artist may not compete for the same jobs, but they may for the same doctors appointment slot, or apple in the supermarket, etc. But the parameters they are talking about are two people going for the same job slot. There is only one slot so only one person can get the job, which means there has to be competition between all applicants even if there is no apparent one that is superior or inferior. ", "timestamp": 1521947170 } ]	[ { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "dw8orpq", "score": 31, "text": "The issue with your view is that, no matter how much you say that \"men's work\" and \"women's work\" are equivalent in value, society has decided that men's work is much more valuable than women's. A man can earn bread for himself, even if he doesn't have a wife. If a woman is supposed to be a nurturer of children, she needs a husband to do so. \n\nThis means that women have to get married, to both have a child to nurture and also to have someone provide for them. This gives men a lot of power over women. You can say that men shouldn't oppress women, but the fact of the matter is, the society you want will oppress women by it's vary nature, and will provide men with ample opportunities to further oppress women.", "timestamp": 1521945261 }, { "author": "The_Almighty_Bob", "id": "dw8q0qm", "score": 1, "text": ">The issue with your view is that, no matter how much you say that \"men's work\" and \"women's work\" are equivalent in value, society has decided that men's work is much more valuable than women's.\n\nYes, I agree with you that the society has decided that men's work is much more valuable. And this is what I want to be changed in the society. It is the perspective that must change and not the work they do.\n\nFor example, in the country I come from, some filthy people believe that women should be clothed modestly and should stay covered to avoid getting molested. So should we change the women's clothes or should we change the perspective of the society?\n\nWell, the answer will always be perspective.\n\n\n>A man can earn bread for himself, even if he doesn't have a wife. If a woman is supposed to be a nurturer of children, she needs a husband to do so.\n\nI agree with you in that. And that is the reason I am not against women getting educated and empowered. I say that they must not change their work as nurturer but if the need be (like having no one to look after, or having a husband die) they must take it to themselves to earn their daily bread.", "timestamp": 1521946843 }, { "author": "Hellioning", "id": "dw8q5yp", "score": 18, "text": "None of that changes the fact that this gives men a lot of power over women, both in terms of political power (since running a country doesn't sound like something women should do) and actual power (women have to rely on their husband for sustenance, which means divorce is a dangerous idea, which means men can afford to be dicks to them).", "timestamp": 1521947032 } ]	[ "dw8nyx5", "dw8p0d4", "dw8q9sx" ]	[ "dw8orpq", "dw8q0qm", "dw8q5yp" ]
CMV: Monogamy Is Narcissistic Setting this one up in a questionnaire format works for me: 1) Do you want someone who’s always gonna be there for you, and wants you for you? Yes. 2) Do you want your partner to do what they want to do, more than what you want them to do? Yes. 3) Are you perfect for your partner? No. 4) So other people are able to provide beneficial things to your partner that you cannot provide at the moment? Yes. 5) If your partner found someone able to provide more beneficial things for them than you are able to provide at the time, would you encourage them to explore and grow from that opportunity? Yes. 6) Then how can you have monogamy? By closing my partner off from opportunities more beneficial for them than what I can provide for them. Conclusion: Monogamy is narcissistic, the opposite of loving or caring.	Does my partner need to be romantically involved with these other people to explore and grow from the opportunity? They can explore and grow just fine without being romantically involved right? --- Right, I agree. But when the partner realizes the reality that someone else is more beneficial in other non-romantic areas, does anyone believe the partner will remain romantically involved with us? Plus, including the natural effects of spending more time & energy with someone else... Attachment will set in --- So what I'm getting from this is that you think all people naturally seek out the "best" new partner and consistently trade up instead of sticking with the partner they already have out of love and comfort. --- That has been my experience, yes, which contradicts the "monogamy" the people are simultaneously claiming they want. --- Then your flaw is in your perception of people as disloyal moreso than it is with monogamy. --- But isn't loyalty included in the definition of monogamy? I learned monogamy as a \forever\ thing, most likely from being associated with marriage through the church, with the obviously heavy & explicit intention of loyalty/exclusivity. But I can see the difference in present-oriented monogamy, and this expectant idealism that grows from the controlling narcissism my problem was with. Δ --- No. Monogamy just means one relationship at a time instead of more than one at the same time.	* It's not narcissistic to care about yourself more than others. It's only narcissistic if it gets to an extreme point and becomes a problem. For instance, you have to feed yourself in order to survive. You deserve to eat even though others also need food. * You should clarify if you're critizing monogamy or merely exclusivity. Monogamy by definition is marrying a single partner. Are you advocating for polygamy? Or open relationships? --- I'm specifically criticizing exclusivity, which I see pre-packaged in the definition of monogamy. But regardless, why would the partner marry or stay married to us when we're not most beneficial for them? The best solution I see atm is open relationships/love, but I prefer to keep that a separate discussion later --- If you're not the most beneficial for them, but someone else is, then they could--and perhaps should--leave and be with that person. Go ahead, trade up. That isn't a criticism of monogamy, it's a criticism of people who are with subpar partners and don't want to move on. Divorces happen for reasons like this all the time. "Open love" doesn't solve the problem of you being a subpar partner for them. It just makes it slightly less of a hassle to leave you. --- > If you're not the most beneficial for them, but someone else is, then they could--and perhaps should--leave and be with that person. Go ahead, trade up But people are not single dimentional. for example your current husband is 8 physical, 8 money, 8 fatherhood, 8 personality, 0 sexual performance. Would it be a good idea to leave him for someone who is 6 physical, 6 money, 6 fatherhood, 6 personality, 10 sexual performance ? After all, the husband is subpar compared to the other one. Wouldn't it be way better to keep your husband, and find another sexual partner to compensate the only thing you're not happy with your husband ? --- Way better for you, way worse and damaging for your husband, your family if you have one, more damaging for friendships and your social circle around the two of you. Why is it the husband being selfish if it's the wife who is putting all of thier relationships at risk for sex? --- Of course, the pre-requisite for such is consent, not cheating behind the other's back. If you do so, where is the risk ? --- Well even in an open relationship there are very real problems, especially in a marriage. A obvious and immediate one is jealousy, which studies have found open marriages tend to have more instances of jealousy, and with a marriage, with a children maybe involved and certainly shared assets and shared living conditions jealousy can lead to messy situations and conflict. Numerous studies have found that people in open relationships drift towards monogamy as time goes on because of the stress and frankly complicated aspects of maintaining multiple relationships at a time. I know that atleast two surveys of divorced people asking the reasons for divorce noted a correlation between open marriages and divorce one putting the overall rate of divorce due to open marriage at 1%. Which seems low but best estimates put open marriages at 1-6% of the population, so best guess is 1-6 could be ending in divorce a certainly grim number for engaging in open marriage. So all that being said I would say that open marriages with consent do have a fair chance of making issues within the relationships. Now of course if both parties agree they are sort of both to blame, and indeed I would imagine a fair amount of these stem from already bad relationships and trying to salvage them. In the end I would think that given these studies I would say that monogamy does atleast have some benefits over non-monogamy specifically with regard to difficulty in maintaining these relationships, given the prevalence of jealousy and conflict within these relationships as demonstrated by divorce and the drift towards monogamy. That being said you can find studies about benefits to open relationships as well so it's not black and white I suppose though I personally find them disagreeable; but that also means flat out statements like op's saying monagamy is just worse than open relationships seem equally as false as a blanket statement of all open relationships are bad. Edit:. I can link some of these studies if you want but I'm starting work atm so might be a bit, also why I didn't in the first place no time atm.	9f9o88	CMV: Monogamy Is Narcissistic	Setting this one up in a questionnaire format works for me: 1) Do you want someone who’s always gonna be there for you, and wants you for you? Yes. 2) Do you want your partner to do what they want to do, more than what you want them to do? Yes. 3) Are you perfect for your partner? No. 4) So other people are able to provide beneficial things to your partner that you cannot provide at the moment? Yes. 5) If your partner found someone able to provide more beneficial things for them than you are able to provide at the time, would you encourage them to explore and grow from that opportunity? Yes. 6) Then how can you have monogamy? By closing my partner off from opportunities more beneficial for them than what I can provide for them. Conclusion: Monogamy is narcissistic, the opposite of loving or caring.	murphy_man09	7	7	[ { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "e5us8zm", "score": 7, "text": "Does my partner need to be romantically involved with these other people to explore and grow from the opportunity? They can explore and grow just fine without being romantically involved right? ", "timestamp": 1536772667 }, { "author": "murphy_man09", "id": "e5utvap", "score": -1, "text": "Right, I agree. But when the partner realizes the reality that someone else is more beneficial in other non-romantic areas, does anyone believe the partner will remain romantically involved with us? Plus, including the natural effects of spending more time & energy with someone else... Attachment will set in", "timestamp": 1536774012 }, { "author": "kasuchans", "id": "e5uujy0", "score": 4, "text": "So what I'm getting from this is that you think all people naturally seek out the \"best\" new partner and consistently trade up instead of sticking with the partner they already have out of love and comfort. ", "timestamp": 1536774584 }, { "author": "murphy_man09", "id": "e5uwaai", "score": 2, "text": "That has been my experience, yes, which contradicts the \"monogamy\" the people are simultaneously claiming they want. ", "timestamp": 1536776048 }, { "author": "kasuchans", "id": "e5uwjya", "score": 2, "text": "Then your flaw is in your perception of people as disloyal moreso than it is with monogamy. ", "timestamp": 1536776277 }, { "author": "murphy_man09", "id": "e5uz50o", "score": 2, "text": "But isn't loyalty included in the definition of monogamy? I learned monogamy as a \\forever\\ thing, most likely from being associated with marriage through the church, with the obviously heavy & explicit intention of loyalty/exclusivity. But I can see the difference in present-oriented monogamy, and this expectant idealism that grows from the controlling narcissism my problem was with. Δ ", "timestamp": 1536778433 }, { "author": "whichbladeN", "id": "e5uzd8v", "score": 3, "text": "No. Monogamy just means one relationship at a time instead of more than one at the same time.", "timestamp": 1536778615 } ]	[ { "author": "woodelf", "id": "e5usojn", "score": 7, "text": "* It's not narcissistic to care about yourself more than others. It's only narcissistic if it gets to an extreme point and becomes a problem. For instance, you have to feed yourself in order to survive. You deserve to eat even though others also need food.\n\n* You should clarify if you're critizing monogamy or merely exclusivity. Monogamy by definition is marrying a single partner. Are you advocating for polygamy? Or open relationships?", "timestamp": 1536773030 }, { "author": "murphy_man09", "id": "e5uu6rz", "score": -2, "text": "I'm specifically criticizing exclusivity, which I see pre-packaged in the definition of monogamy. \nBut regardless, why would the partner marry or stay married to us when we're not most beneficial for them? \n\n\nThe best solution I see atm is open relationships/love, but I prefer to keep that a separate discussion later", "timestamp": 1536774281 }, { "author": "mysundayscheming", "id": "e5uv8kv", "score": 8, "text": "If you're not the most beneficial for them, but someone else is, then they could--and perhaps should--leave and be with that person. Go ahead, trade up. That isn't a criticism of monogamy, it's a criticism of people who are with subpar partners and don't want to move on. Divorces happen for reasons like this all the time. \n\n\"Open love\" doesn't solve the problem of you being a subpar partner for them. It just makes it slightly less of a hassle to leave you. ", "timestamp": 1536775157 }, { "author": "Nicolasv2", "id": "e5uwfq5", "score": 2, "text": "> If you're not the most beneficial for them, but someone else is, then they could--and perhaps should--leave and be with that person. Go ahead, trade up\n\nBut people are not single dimentional. for example your current husband is 8 physical, 8 money, 8 fatherhood, 8 personality, 0 sexual performance. Would it be a good idea to leave him for someone who is 6 physical, 6 money, 6 fatherhood, 6 personality, 10 sexual performance ? After all, the husband is subpar compared to the other one. \n\nWouldn't it be way better to keep your husband, and find another sexual partner to compensate the only thing you're not happy with your husband ? ", "timestamp": 1536776177 }, { "author": "Bookwrrm", "id": "e5uxvld", "score": 3, "text": "Way better for you, way worse and damaging for your husband, your family if you have one, more damaging for friendships and your social circle around the two of you. Why is it the husband being selfish if it's the wife who is putting all of thier relationships at risk for sex? ", "timestamp": 1536777386 }, { "author": "Nicolasv2", "id": "e5v11ra", "score": 1, "text": "Of course, the pre-requisite for such is consent, not cheating behind the other's back. If you do so, where is the risk ? ", "timestamp": 1536779972 }, { "author": "Bookwrrm", "id": "e5v3t56", "score": 2, "text": "Well even in an open relationship there are very real problems, especially in a marriage. A obvious and immediate one is jealousy, which studies have found open marriages tend to have more instances of jealousy, and with a marriage, with a children maybe involved and certainly shared assets and shared living conditions jealousy can lead to messy situations and conflict. Numerous studies have found that people in open relationships drift towards monogamy as time goes on because of the stress and frankly complicated aspects of maintaining multiple relationships at a time. I know that atleast two surveys of divorced people asking the reasons for divorce noted a correlation between open marriages and divorce one putting the overall rate of divorce due to open marriage at 1%. Which seems low but best estimates put open marriages at 1-6% of the population, so best guess is 1-6 could be ending in divorce a certainly grim number for engaging in open marriage.\n\n\n\nSo all that being said I would say that open marriages with consent do have a fair chance of making issues within the relationships. Now of course if both parties agree they are sort of both to blame, and indeed I would imagine a fair amount of these stem from already bad relationships and trying to salvage them. In the end I would think that given these studies I would say that monogamy does atleast have some benefits over non-monogamy specifically with regard to difficulty in maintaining these relationships, given the prevalence of jealousy and conflict within these relationships as demonstrated by divorce and the drift towards monogamy. That being said you can find studies about benefits to open relationships as well so it's not black and white I suppose though I personally find them disagreeable; but that also means flat out statements like op's saying monagamy is just worse than open relationships seem equally as false as a blanket statement of all open relationships are bad.\n\n\nEdit:. I can link some of these studies if you want but I'm starting work atm so might be a bit, also why I didn't in the first place no time atm.", "timestamp": 1536782229 } ]	[ "e5us8zm", "e5utvap", "e5uujy0", "e5uwaai", "e5uwjya", "e5uz50o", "e5uzd8v" ]	[ "e5usojn", "e5uu6rz", "e5uv8kv", "e5uwfq5", "e5uxvld", "e5v11ra", "e5v3t56" ]
CMV: Maple Syrup is a topping and not a condiment A friend of mine and I have had this debate for years, so I thought I would bring this to Reddit, to see if they can change my view. I argue that maple syrup is a topping and not a condiment. I feel like it is a topping because it is used sparingly on only a few different food products and is normally found on top of these items, thus making it a topping. My feeling is that a condiment is something that is used a lot more commonly, like ketchup or mustard. The definitions don't help much: Topping: a layer of food poured or spread over a base of a different type of food to add flavor. Condiment: a substance such as salt or ketchup that is used to add flavor to food. My friend has pointed out that he has seen syrup on the condiment isle at a grocery store, but I have seen the opposite as well, as I found syrup in the topping isle of my local Kroger. It is obvious there is some societal disagreement as to where maple syrup stands, but I am sure that it is a topping and not a condiment. Change my view.	I'd contend it can function as either a topping or a condiment depending on how you present and use it. Put it in a ramekin to dip sweet potato fries or chicken nuggets? Condiment. Pour it over pancakes? Topping. It's not an either-or proposition. --- But a choice has to be made because stores have to decide where to store it. Either you're going down the condiment isle or the topping isle looking for syrup. --- It's going to be with the sugar and corn syrup and honey because they're all sweet things. Whatever you call it, you're not going to put the maple syrup next to the mustard. Meanwhile, relish (I'd say a topping) is going to be near the mustard and vinegar because they serve similar culinary purposes regardless if they're a condiment or a topping. Whether they're used for sweet or savory purposes is the more important distinction than topping vs condiment.	Here's my disclaimer: I don't like pancakes or waffles, especially for breakfast. Sweet stuff makes me feel like hell all day. That being said, there's still a few things to note: I can purchase maple bacon, or maple sausages for breakfast. I can make oatmeal or granola, or Greek yogurt. In any of these foods, the maple isn't on top. It's an integrated and central part of the dish. You don't put mustard on top of a burger, you put it inside it. In the same way, I don't pour maple syrup on bacon, but I certainly don't mind it when it's already cured with maple. --- Is maple used for oatmeal the same as syrup? I think you have a fair point, but I am not sure if maple as an extract for food is the same as syrup. --- When it ends up on oatmeal, it gets mixed in with a little brown sugar (and a touch of salt)	a8b717	CMV: Maple Syrup is a topping and not a condiment	A friend of mine and I have had this debate for years, so I thought I would bring this to Reddit, to see if they can change my view. I argue that maple syrup is a topping and not a condiment. I feel like it is a topping because it is used sparingly on only a few different food products and is normally found on top of these items, thus making it a topping. My feeling is that a condiment is something that is used a lot more commonly, like ketchup or mustard. The definitions don't help much: Topping: a layer of food poured or spread over a base of a different type of food to add flavor. Condiment: a substance such as salt or ketchup that is used to add flavor to food. My friend has pointed out that he has seen syrup on the condiment isle at a grocery store, but I have seen the opposite as well, as I found syrup in the topping isle of my local Kroger. It is obvious there is some societal disagreement as to where maple syrup stands, but I am sure that it is a topping and not a condiment. Change my view.	capta1n_sarcasm	3	3	[ { "author": "sakamake", "id": "ec9czvn", "score": 1, "text": "I'd contend it can function as either a topping or a condiment depending on how you present and use it. Put it in a ramekin to dip sweet potato fries or chicken nuggets? Condiment. Pour it over pancakes? Topping. It's not an either-or proposition. ", "timestamp": 1545410026 }, { "author": "capta1n_sarcasm", "id": "ec9efhg", "score": 1, "text": "But a choice has to be made because stores have to decide where to store it. Either you're going down the condiment isle or the topping isle looking for syrup. ", "timestamp": 1545411042 }, { "author": "ganner", "id": "ec9feug", "score": 1, "text": "It's going to be with the sugar and corn syrup and honey because they're all sweet things. Whatever you call it, you're not going to put the maple syrup next to the mustard. Meanwhile, relish (I'd say a topping) is going to be near the mustard and vinegar because they serve similar culinary purposes regardless if they're a condiment or a topping. Whether they're used for sweet or savory purposes is the more important distinction than topping vs condiment.", "timestamp": 1545411750 } ]	[ { "author": "gbdallin", "id": "ec9et7w", "score": 0, "text": "Here's my disclaimer: I don't like pancakes or waffles, especially for breakfast. Sweet stuff makes me feel like hell all day. That being said, there's still a few things to note:\n\nI can purchase maple bacon, or maple sausages for breakfast. I can make oatmeal or granola, or Greek yogurt. In any of these foods, the maple isn't on top. It's an integrated and central part of the dish. You don't put mustard on top of a burger, you put it inside it. In the same way, I don't pour maple syrup on bacon, but I certainly don't mind it when it's already cured with maple. ", "timestamp": 1545411316 }, { "author": "capta1n_sarcasm", "id": "ec9f3lx", "score": 1, "text": "Is maple used for oatmeal the same as syrup? I think you have a fair point, but I am not sure if maple as an extract for food is the same as syrup. ", "timestamp": 1545411523 }, { "author": "gbdallin", "id": "ec9f5x2", "score": 2, "text": "When it ends up on oatmeal, it gets mixed in with a little brown sugar (and a touch of salt)", "timestamp": 1545411569 } ]	[ "ec9czvn", "ec9efhg", "ec9feug" ]	[ "ec9et7w", "ec9f3lx", "ec9f5x2" ]
CMV:War with North Korea is now unavoidable and will happen before 2020. With John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as part of Trump's white house,It is safe to say that the reality is war with North Korea will happen. The talks will break down and then,the bombs come out. With the way things are,I see no other outcome(Unless China does something drastic). So CMV,let's do something a bit different: You can try to change my view on this,but let's talk about how bad this coming second korean war will be- -Japan will get that third nuke...or be destroyed outright,won't it? -South Korea will catch a nuke itself...and then become a third-world country,won't it? -East Asia(China included)...Won't recover from this,will they? -Are we simply looking at a recession worse than 1929 and 2008 combined? -And does all of this mean...that we will be stuck with Trump and the GOP for another term? And let's look at some reasons WHY I think everything's fucked: -Our missile defense systems are overpriced,overengineered,useless pieces of crap(Or so MANY people and MANY pundits believe anyway,and they could be right for all I know) -The ever-present bad-blood between both Koreas and Japan(Honestly,If I was a North Korean general,I'd be utterly fucking DUMB not to nuke Japan,the place is filled with targets worthy of a nuke!),And not to mention certain tactical and strategic advantages to attacking Japan... -The fact that the coming talks are more than likely a huge sham and that this administration's stance has shifted to "Fuck China". -And of course what we know about North Korean military capabilities. So yeah... (And please,two things before you post:One,please don't tell me to get help..I already am,And two,If you're gonna call me a weeaboo...well I don't give a fuck,Japan's fucked five million ways to friday and I'm not interested in the country at all anymore,and I find that it was a monumental waste of time to be interested in a doomed,condemned and soon-to-be dead nation.) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	There is no way to predict this because 90% of it is going to come down to kim's personality, and as we dont know him we dont know what hes planning or thinking --- He was trained in the west. He is far more rational than we think.	if I government declares war on North Korea, I would hope and pray that every single service man and woman refuse to serve and becomes a conscientious objector even if it means they are all thrown in the brig.at some point somebody has to tell the government that they can't keep throwing young bodies as cannon fodder against unsolvable problems like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea part 1, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc etc. war is great in theory but very rarely actually works, and in reality it's absolute hell for all involved. --- Sorry, wouldn't happen.	86wjmn	CMV:War with North Korea is now unavoidable and will happen before 2020.	With John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as part of Trump's white house,It is safe to say that the reality is war with North Korea will happen. The talks will break down and then,the bombs come out. With the way things are,I see no other outcome(Unless China does something drastic). So CMV,let's do something a bit different: You can try to change my view on this,but let's talk about how bad this coming second korean war will be- -Japan will get that third nuke...or be destroyed outright,won't it? -South Korea will catch a nuke itself...and then become a third-world country,won't it? -East Asia(China included)...Won't recover from this,will they? -Are we simply looking at a recession worse than 1929 and 2008 combined? -And does all of this mean...that we will be stuck with Trump and the GOP for another term? And let's look at some reasons WHY I think everything's fucked: -Our missile defense systems are overpriced,overengineered,useless pieces of crap(Or so MANY people and MANY pundits believe anyway,and they could be right for all I know) -The ever-present bad-blood between both Koreas and Japan(Honestly,If I was a North Korean general,I'd be utterly fucking DUMB not to nuke Japan,the place is filled with targets worthy of a nuke!),And not to mention certain tactical and strategic advantages to attacking Japan... -The fact that the coming talks are more than likely a huge sham and that this administration's stance has shifted to "Fuck China". -And of course what we know about North Korean military capabilities. So yeah... (And please,two things before you post:One,please don't tell me to get help..I already am,And two,If you're gonna call me a weeaboo...well I don't give a fuck,Japan's fucked five million ways to friday and I'm not interested in the country at all anymore,and I find that it was a monumental waste of time to be interested in a doomed,condemned and soon-to-be dead nation.) _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Hayate_Immelmann_	2	2	[ { "author": "blueelffishy", "id": "dw8dozn", "score": 0, "text": "There is no way to predict this because 90% of it is going to come down to kim's personality, and as we dont know him we dont know what hes planning or thinking", "timestamp": 1521932242 }, { "author": "Iswallowedafly", "id": "dw8nbiq", "score": 1, "text": "He was trained in the west. \n\nHe is far more rational than we think. ", "timestamp": 1521943473 } ]	[ { "author": "quietmedic", "id": "dw8e1ww", "score": 0, "text": "if I government declares war on North Korea, I would hope and pray that every single service man and woman refuse to serve and becomes a conscientious objector even if it means they are all thrown in the brig.at some point somebody has to tell the government that they can't keep throwing young bodies as cannon fodder against unsolvable problems like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea part 1, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc etc. war is great in theory but very rarely actually works, and in reality it's absolute hell for all involved.", "timestamp": 1521932657 }, { "author": "FTWinning", "id": "dw8fb34", "score": 2, "text": "Sorry, wouldn't happen.", "timestamp": 1521934133 } ]	[ "dw8dozn", "dw8nbiq" ]	[ "dw8e1ww", "dw8fb34" ]
CMV: Trump's tweet is not obstruction of justice I want to preface this by saying I am not a Trump supporter. What I do support, it truth. And the truth is, his tweet was not obstruction of justice. Let's look at the tweet (with emphasis added): >..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt *right now*, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! Ok, let's go through a few points: 1. Jeff Sessions recused himself of the investigation. Even if this was a direct order it couldn't legally, be carried out. 2. Trump has the ability to end it if he so chooses, so asking someone else to do it (especially someone who can't) doesn't really make sense. 3. Anyone who knows Trump knows he's likes to rant. What this tweet was was a rant. I could tweet "Donald Trump should resign" but that doesn't mean I'm telling him to resign. I'm simply stating what I think should happen, but not ordering it. 4. The rest of the tweet is more opinion, and not helping the case for calling it obstruction of justice. In the end, this was just a rant by Trump, aimed at a person with no power in this, asking him to do something Trump himself could do if he wants to. If the tweet, instead said something like: >I am calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end this Rigged Witch Hunt... Then, there would definitely be a case. But as of now, the tweet only represents one this: Trump's opinion.	> Jeff Sessions recused himself of the investigation. Even if this was a direct order it couldn't legally, be carried out. It doesn't matter if it could currently be legally be carried out. I could bribe a police officer to do something regarding an investigation and that would be obstruction regardless if the bribe was legal or not. > Trump has the ability to end it if he so chooses, so asking someone else to do it (especially someone who can't) doesn't really make sense. He gives order to people to execute them. Muller is too far down the chain to directly order him to do something. > Anyone who knows Trump knows he's likes to rant. What this tweet was was a rant. I could tweet "Donald Trump should resign" but that doesn't mean I'm telling him to resign. I'm simply stating what I think should happen, but not ordering it. Sessions directly reports to Trump. If you were a manager and you told someone that reported to you that he should resign - that is more than a rant. And it would be fair to say you gave direction to the employee or else people would say "sure he told me to clean the mess up, but it was just him ranting" > The rest of the tweet is more opinion, and not helping the case for calling it obstruction of justice. That can be consider obstruction because its influencing. "It is my opinion that you should stop doing this." is not something that you ignore when it comes to your manager. --- >It doesn't matter if it could currently be legally be carried out. I could bribe a police officer to do something regarding an investigation and that would be obstruction regardless if the bribe was legal or not. The difference here is that the police officer still has access to the hypothetical investigation. Jeff Sessions does not have access to the Russia investigation. >He gives order to people to execute them. Muller is too far down the chain to directly order him to do something. That is fair, but again he's "asking" someone who does not have the access or ability to do so. >Sessions directly reports to Trump. If you were a manager and you told someone that reported to you that he should resign - that is more than a rant. And it would be fair to say you gave direction to the employee or else people would say "sure he told me to clean the mess up, but it was just him ranting" Well he's not speaking to Sessions directly. He is referring to him in third person. If a boss rants to board members about a certain person in the company and how they should resign, that's a rant. Trump is speaking openly to the American people, not to Sessions directly. >That can be consider obstruction because its influencing. "It is my opinion that you should stop doing this." is not something that you ignore when it comes to your manager. Could you provide me an example of this holding up in a previous case? It is an interesting point, but I would like evidence to support it. --- >Trump is speaking openly to the American people, not to Sessions directly. Sessions is a part of the American people. --- Agreed, but again, it's not a direct order. He is expressing his opinion about what should be done. --- > speaking to Sessions directly. He is referring to him in third person. If a boss Are you familiar with [the meddlesome priest?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F)	It could be that by saying Sessions name, Trump is masking his directives to people who can end the investigation. You can't put it past the Trump administration, or any administration, to have codes and disguised language. You may say, "yeah, but that isn't coded at all". To which I'd agree, but the intent is to have mutual understanding without explicitly saying something. A similar example would be the removal of water bottles by Trump and then Pence. It was obvious, to anyone who saw it, that communication took place, but only those two know exactly what it meant. There have been numerous calls to remove Rosenstein from the investigation from the Trump administration after the office of his attorney was raided. The trend seems to be Trump shapes the idea/language and his base uses it in their voice. As to whether or not it's obstruction? I think so. But it would be foolish to go after it, because if you miss on that target, you give credence to the "witch hunt" designation while giving them that much more ammunition to stop the entire investigation. --- Regardless of whether it was coded language or not, it's not explicitly obstruction, and if it ever came up as evidence in a court of law, I don't think it would hold. --- If you can prove that after he made that tweet, certain people made a coordinated attempt to do what he said, then there should be a higher than 0% chance that it would hold. --- Agreed, but right now, there is no proof of that. And correlation does not always mean causation, so even then, it would still be an uphill battle to call this obstruction. --- Absolutely. But saying something is not obstruction, and saying something hasn't been proved to be obstruction is two different things. The, "Russia, if you're listening, where are Hillary's missing emails" was just a throwaway dig, until we found out a couple years later that Russian hackers went to work on it the same day. Time will tell. But again, I don't think this is something they should even focus on because of the high risk low reward.	94lub8	CMV: Trump's tweet is not obstruction of justice	I want to preface this by saying I am not a Trump supporter. What I do support, it truth. And the truth is, his tweet was not obstruction of justice. Let's look at the tweet (with emphasis added): >..This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt *right now*, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA! Ok, let's go through a few points: 1. Jeff Sessions recused himself of the investigation. Even if this was a direct order it couldn't legally, be carried out. 2. Trump has the ability to end it if he so chooses, so asking someone else to do it (especially someone who can't) doesn't really make sense. 3. Anyone who knows Trump knows he's likes to rant. What this tweet was was a rant. I could tweet "Donald Trump should resign" but that doesn't mean I'm telling him to resign. I'm simply stating what I think should happen, but not ordering it. 4. The rest of the tweet is more opinion, and not helping the case for calling it obstruction of justice. In the end, this was just a rant by Trump, aimed at a person with no power in this, asking him to do something Trump himself could do if he wants to. If the tweet, instead said something like: >I am calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to end this Rigged Witch Hunt... Then, there would definitely be a case. But as of now, the tweet only represents one this: Trump's opinion.	nmgreddit	5	5	[ { "author": "caw81", "id": "e3lziih", "score": 1, "text": "> Jeff Sessions recused himself of the investigation. Even if this was a direct order it couldn't legally, be carried out.\n\nIt doesn't matter if it could currently be legally be carried out. I could bribe a police officer to do something regarding an investigation and that would be obstruction regardless if the bribe was legal or not.\n\n> Trump has the ability to end it if he so chooses, so asking someone else to do it (especially someone who can't) doesn't really make sense.\n\nHe gives order to people to execute them. Muller is too far down the chain to directly order him to do something.\n\n> Anyone who knows Trump knows he's likes to rant. What this tweet was was a rant. I could tweet \"Donald Trump should resign\" but that doesn't mean I'm telling him to resign. I'm simply stating what I think should happen, but not ordering it.\n\nSessions directly reports to Trump. If you were a manager and you told someone that reported to you that he should resign - that is more than a rant. And it would be fair to say you gave direction to the employee or else people would say \"sure he told me to clean the mess up, but it was just him ranting\"\n\n> The rest of the tweet is more opinion, and not helping the case for calling it obstruction of justice.\n\nThat can be consider obstruction because its influencing. \"It is my opinion that you should stop doing this.\" is not something that you ignore when it comes to your manager.\n", "timestamp": 1533413754 }, { "author": "nmgreddit", "id": "e3lzxfq", "score": -1, "text": ">It doesn't matter if it could currently be legally be carried out. I could bribe a police officer to do something regarding an investigation and that would be obstruction regardless if the bribe was legal or not.\n\nThe difference here is that the police officer still has access to the hypothetical investigation. Jeff Sessions does not have access to the Russia investigation.\n\n>He gives order to people to execute them. Muller is too far down the chain to directly order him to do something.\n\nThat is fair, but again he's \"asking\" someone who does not have the access or ability to do so.\n\n>Sessions directly reports to Trump. If you were a manager and you told someone that reported to you that he should resign - that is more than a rant. And it would be fair to say you gave direction to the employee or else people would say \"sure he told me to clean the mess up, but it was just him ranting\"\n\nWell he's not speaking to Sessions directly. He is referring to him in third person. If a boss rants to board members about a certain person in the company and how they should resign, that's a rant. Trump is speaking openly to the American people, not to Sessions directly.\n\n>That can be consider obstruction because its influencing. \"It is my opinion that you should stop doing this.\" is not something that you ignore when it comes to your manager.\n\nCould you provide me an example of this holding up in a previous case? It is an interesting point, but I would like evidence to support it.", "timestamp": 1533414185 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "e3m0627", "score": 1, "text": ">Trump is speaking openly to the American people, not to Sessions directly.\n\nSessions is a part of the American people.", "timestamp": 1533414436 }, { "author": "nmgreddit", "id": "e3m08mo", "score": -1, "text": "Agreed, but again, it's not a direct order. He is expressing his opinion about what should be done.", "timestamp": 1533414513 }, { "author": "Spaffin", "id": "e3m7m1l", "score": 3, "text": "> speaking to Sessions directly. He is referring to him in third person. If a boss \n\nAre you familiar with [the meddlesome priest?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F)", "timestamp": 1533422277 } ]	[ { "author": "nopunin10did7ate9", "id": "e3lz7iz", "score": 3, "text": "It could be that by saying Sessions name, Trump is masking his directives to people who can end the investigation. \n\nYou can't put it past the Trump administration, or any administration, to have codes and disguised language. You may say, \"yeah, but that isn't coded at all\". To which I'd agree, but the intent is to have mutual understanding without explicitly saying something. A similar example would be the removal of water bottles by Trump and then Pence. It was obvious, to anyone who saw it, that communication took place, but only those two know exactly what it meant.\n\nThere have been numerous calls to remove Rosenstein from the investigation from the Trump administration after the office of his attorney was raided. The trend seems to be Trump shapes the idea/language and his base uses it in their voice. \n\nAs to whether or not it's obstruction? I think so. But it would be foolish to go after it, because if you miss on that target, you give credence to the \"witch hunt\" designation while giving them that much more ammunition to stop the entire investigation. ", "timestamp": 1533413432 }, { "author": "nmgreddit", "id": "e3lzaec", "score": -1, "text": "Regardless of whether it was coded language or not, it's not explicitly obstruction, and if it ever came up as evidence in a court of law, I don't think it would hold.", "timestamp": 1533413515 }, { "author": "nopunin10did7ate9", "id": "e3lzh3y", "score": 3, "text": "If you can prove that after he made that tweet, certain people made a coordinated attempt to do what he said, then there should be a higher than 0% chance that it would hold. ", "timestamp": 1533413714 }, { "author": "nmgreddit", "id": "e3lzk1u", "score": 2, "text": "Agreed, but right now, there is no proof of that. And correlation does not always mean causation, so even then, it would still be an uphill battle to call this obstruction.", "timestamp": 1533413798 }, { "author": "nopunin10did7ate9", "id": "e3lzwmt", "score": 2, "text": "Absolutely. But saying something is not obstruction, and saying something hasn't been proved to be obstruction is two different things. \n\nThe, \"Russia, if you're listening, where are Hillary's missing emails\" was just a throwaway dig, until we found out a couple years later that Russian hackers went to work on it the same day. Time will tell. But again, I don't think this is something they should even focus on because of the high risk low reward.", "timestamp": 1533414161 } ]	[ "e3lziih", "e3lzxfq", "e3m0627", "e3m08mo", "e3m7m1l" ]	[ "e3lz7iz", "e3lzaec", "e3lzh3y", "e3lzk1u", "e3lzwmt" ]
CMV: There is no need to worry about STDs as a heterosexual male I do not believe that there is any reason to worry about STDs anymore as a heterosexual male to the point of avoiding unprotected vaginal sex with strangers. Pretty much all of them are only minor inconveniences. HIV is reliably treatable now so as long as you treat it when you get it it won't be an issue. Most are treatable so as long as you get periodically tested you should be fine and there are no untreatable ones that are severe. I think this also applies to women and gay men but to a lesser extent as they still have greater risk and HPV vaccination of women only doesn't help gay men. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Dude. Herpes. --- Why is it a problem? --- It's painful! Many women who have herpes have an outbreak every month with their period. It doesn't take much to provoke a herpes outbreak. They are literally blisters that break and scab over. They are unsightly, itch, are painful, and leave scars.	I'll let the pain and money and time change your mind for you buddy. --- I couldn't get an STD if I tried so my mind will never be changed by experience. --- Then I'm genuinely very happy for you to be honest.	6xq2c0	CMV: There is no need to worry about STDs as a heterosexual male	I do not believe that there is any reason to worry about STDs anymore as a heterosexual male to the point of avoiding unprotected vaginal sex with strangers. Pretty much all of them are only minor inconveniences. HIV is reliably treatable now so as long as you treat it when you get it it won't be an issue. Most are treatable so as long as you get periodically tested you should be fine and there are no untreatable ones that are severe. I think this also applies to women and gay men but to a lesser extent as they still have greater risk and HPV vaccination of women only doesn't help gay men. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	3	3	[ { "author": "RadioactiveAppendix", "id": "dmhurmh", "score": 3, "text": "Dude. Herpes. ", "timestamp": 1504410724 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhv3ll", "score": 1, "text": "Why is it a problem?", "timestamp": 1504411282 }, { "author": "UpperLeftyOne", "id": "dmirin6", "score": 5, "text": "It's painful! Many women who have herpes have an outbreak every month with their period. It doesn't take much to provoke a herpes outbreak.\n\nThey are literally blisters that break and scab over. They are unsightly, itch, are painful, and leave scars.", "timestamp": 1504471023 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhmrlf", "score": 8, "text": "I'll let the pain and money and time change your mind for you buddy. ", "timestamp": 1504398824 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhoftu", "score": 0, "text": "I couldn't get an STD if I tried so my mind will never be changed by experience.", "timestamp": 1504401227 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhoi5l", "score": 7, "text": "Then I'm genuinely very happy for you to be honest. ", "timestamp": 1504401322 } ]	[ "dmhurmh", "dmhv3ll", "dmirin6" ]	[ "dmhmrlf", "dmhoftu", "dmhoi5l" ]
CMV: There is no need to worry about STDs as a heterosexual male I do not believe that there is any reason to worry about STDs anymore as a heterosexual male to the point of avoiding unprotected vaginal sex with strangers. Pretty much all of them are only minor inconveniences. HIV is reliably treatable now so as long as you treat it when you get it it won't be an issue. Most are treatable so as long as you get periodically tested you should be fine and there are no untreatable ones that are severe. I think this also applies to women and gay men but to a lesser extent as they still have greater risk and HPV vaccination of women only doesn't help gay men. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Loool. I'm 21 M and a virgin and somewhat a germaphobe. I'd always wear protection unless it was my wife. No taunting just happy for you. --- Why would you be happy for me? You yourself are complaining all the time about being a virgin on reddit. So why would you wish that on anybody else? --- My reply failed. What I said was that I'm not complaining, I'm just curious to see how others perceive it if I were to publicly ever mention it. Also, I'm happy that you'll never get an STD regardless of if you have sex or not. If you feel that you won't that's what I meant. I know people who have died to STDs and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. So I'm happy you feel that you can't even if you tried. If by tried you mean that even if you have sex. Not trying to insult you if that's what u thought. --- I thought that you meant that you were happy I would never have sex. That being said if I were to have sex I would probably only be able to find an extremely conscientious person who would care a lot about STDs because I am not a reckless person by any means no matter how much I want to be one. How did they die from STDs though assuming it wasn't AIDS? --- I'm dying of cervical cancer. That's caused by HPV. It kills about 4,000 women per year in the US. Half a million women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year with a mortality rate of close to 50%. It's only a third in the US but I don't feel fortunate for living here. There are [close to 40,000 HPV related cancers diagnosed in the United States per year](https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm). That is including 16,500 men. About 80% of all sexually active people have had at least one HPV infection and most of those have had more than one. There were also [+664,000 abortions performed in the United States in 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States). I imagine that's a small fraction of the number of unwanted children born each year. [Personal bankruptcy due to medical bills is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.](https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148)	I'll let the pain and money and time change your mind for you buddy. --- I couldn't get an STD if I tried so my mind will never be changed by experience. --- Then I'm genuinely very happy for you to be honest. --- Are you going to attempt to change my view or just taunt me for being a virgin who will never be able to get an STD? --- You may not be able to contract an STD because by definition it's impossible with your status as a virgin, barring forcible sexual contact of course, but that does not mean that you cannot get a blood borne pathogen, which is precisely what we're talking about here. Just because a disease is called sexually transmitted does not mean that is its only means of transmission.	6xq2c0	CMV: There is no need to worry about STDs as a heterosexual male	I do not believe that there is any reason to worry about STDs anymore as a heterosexual male to the point of avoiding unprotected vaginal sex with strangers. Pretty much all of them are only minor inconveniences. HIV is reliably treatable now so as long as you treat it when you get it it won't be an issue. Most are treatable so as long as you get periodically tested you should be fine and there are no untreatable ones that are severe. I think this also applies to women and gay men but to a lesser extent as they still have greater risk and HPV vaccination of women only doesn't help gay men. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	ouijblvndrwoek	5	5	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhp9qq", "score": 2, "text": "Loool. I'm 21 M and a virgin and somewhat a germaphobe. I'd always wear protection unless it was my wife. No taunting just happy for you. ", "timestamp": 1504402449 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhpqkw", "score": 2, "text": "Why would you be happy for me? You yourself are complaining all the time about being a virgin on reddit. So why would you wish that on anybody else?", "timestamp": 1504403135 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhpv9i", "score": 2, "text": "My reply failed. What I said was that I'm not complaining, I'm just curious to see how others perceive it if I were to publicly ever mention it. Also, I'm happy that you'll never get an STD regardless of if you have sex or not. If you feel that you won't that's what I meant. I know people who have died to STDs and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone. So I'm happy you feel that you can't even if you tried. If by tried you mean that even if you have sex. Not trying to insult you if that's what u thought. ", "timestamp": 1504403323 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhqm8m", "score": 1, "text": "I thought that you meant that you were happy I would never have sex. That being said if I were to have sex I would probably only be able to find an extremely conscientious person who would care a lot about STDs because I am not a reckless person by any means no matter how much I want to be one. How did they die from STDs though assuming it wasn't AIDS?", "timestamp": 1504404412 }, { "author": "UpperLeftyOne", "id": "dmis7i9", "score": 4, "text": "I'm dying of cervical cancer. That's caused by HPV. It kills about 4,000 women per year in the US. Half a million women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year with a mortality rate of close to 50%. It's only a third in the US but I don't feel fortunate for living here.\n\nThere are [close to 40,000 HPV related cancers diagnosed in the United States per year](https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/index.htm). That is including 16,500 men. About 80% of all sexually active people have had at least one HPV infection and most of those have had more than one. \n\nThere were also [+664,000 abortions performed in the United States in 2013](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States). I imagine that's a small fraction of the number of unwanted children born each year.\n\n[Personal bankruptcy due to medical bills is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy.](https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148)", "timestamp": 1504471936 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhmrlf", "score": 8, "text": "I'll let the pain and money and time change your mind for you buddy. ", "timestamp": 1504398824 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhoftu", "score": 0, "text": "I couldn't get an STD if I tried so my mind will never be changed by experience.", "timestamp": 1504401227 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmhoi5l", "score": 7, "text": "Then I'm genuinely very happy for you to be honest. ", "timestamp": 1504401322 }, { "author": "ouijblvndrwoek", "id": "dmhp81h", "score": -1, "text": "Are you going to attempt to change my view or just taunt me for being a virgin who will never be able to get an STD?", "timestamp": 1504402379 }, { "author": "SimpleandClear", "id": "dmhwnwa", "score": 8, "text": "You may not be able to contract an STD because by definition it's impossible with your status as a virgin, barring forcible sexual contact of course, but that does not mean that you cannot get a blood borne pathogen, which is precisely what we're talking about here. Just because a disease is called sexually transmitted does not mean that is its only means of transmission. \n\n", "timestamp": 1504414033 } ]	[ "dmhp9qq", "dmhpqkw", "dmhpv9i", "dmhqm8m", "dmis7i9" ]	[ "dmhmrlf", "dmhoftu", "dmhoi5l", "dmhp81h", "dmhwnwa" ]
CMV: In TCG's, the solution to free cards that produce raw card advantage is to introduce "completely useless cards" as a deckbuilding requirement EDIT: Thanks for replying, everyone! I've given plenty of deltas to acknowledge how weak my view is. Hopefully I've gotten to everyone already! I apologize if I missed your comment. This is a rather weak view of mine. I only really began thinking about it after watching a video yesterday on Pot of Greed. The scope of this view applies only to TCG's with rather low card volatility. Notably, Pokémon TCG is not within the scope, due to how easily cards are accessed in that game. If you've ever played Yu-Gi-Oh, you likely know about the card Pot of Greed. You know, the one that everyone memes about. It allows you to draw two cards from your deck, for free, by using up the Pot of Greed card itself. This is +1 card advantage for no cost. Such huge card advantage on a single free card is problematic. Since it's free, it can be stocked into every deck, lowering the deckbuilding requirement from 40 to 39 cards. As I understand it, it's because of this that Pot of Greed is currently banned in Yu-Gi-Oh competitive play. My solution to this is to have these cards be legal (either restricted or not), but to force extra cards to be put in the deck as part of deck construction to compensate for having a lower probability of getting the cards needed to win. To avoid having the extra cards be significant enough to the point where they can also contribute to a win, these extra cards would be completely useless "Dud" cards. I actually have much more knowledge with Magic than with Yu-Gi-Oh, so the remainder of this post will use Magic terminology. It can also be applied to Yu-Gi-Oh with its equivalent terms and game elements. Magic's Divination does the following: >Divination {2}{U} >Sorcery >Draw two cards. The free, would-be-legal version would be something like this: >Free-Divination {0} >Sorcery >If ~ is in your deck, shuffle in ten (arbitrary number) Dud cards from outside the game before the game begins. >Draw two cards. The Dud cards put into the deck would reduce the chances of drawing the cards needed for the relevant strategy to win. Here are the functional points on how Dud cards would work: * They have no characteristics whatsoever, not even name. Effects that refer to name can't refer to "Dud" as a name. * They can be discarded, exiled, and put back into the library. However, these actions are completely invisible to the game, and do not trigger the relevant abilities. In addition, they cannot be willingly discarded, exiled, or put into the library by their owner; an effect must do this to the card without the owner's input. Notably, the owner of a Dud card can't discard it due to maximum hand size. * They are considered cards, so they increase hand size and library size by 1 for relevant effects. * As a special action, the owner of a Dud card may forfeit a land play to remove a Dud card in their hand from the game completely. This is distinct from exiling the Dud card. * Dud cards can't be cast or be on the battlefield. They are put into their owner's graveyard immediately as a state-based action. Logistical points: * Like with all other cards, whether to include these cards, or how they function, may be altered depending on a particular casual group's prior agreements. * In a tournament, it is the deck owner's responsibility to ensure any accompanying Dud cards are in the deck alongside the associated free cards. If a player is deck-checked in the middle of a game and the player's deck is illegal, they will be punished with the usual punishments for an illegal deck (or higher, if appropriate). * Dud cards removed from the game via the special action are to be shuffled back in between games in a match. * If a free card is somehow no longer in a deck but is also not in a player's sideboard, any Dud cards that may still be in the deck remain in the deck. * If a free card is put into the sideboard, the associated Dud cards may be removed from the deck if desired. Technically, a player would be allowed to put in as many Dud cards they wish into their deck without penalty, as long as the minimum required is in the deck. * Dud cards take zero sideboard space. If I recall correctly, some digital card games already have some notion of Dud cards. I think Hearthstone has some cards that put useless cards in hand? To qualify for a delta, you must specifically explain why this balance implementation of otherwise-broken cards is bad. Convincing me that one of my functional or logistical points should be changed might also qualify as a delta. I am aware that there are other mechanisms for making sure cards aren't always drawn (such as "Flip N coins, draw one for each heads"), but I am more concerned with the viability of this implementation in this post. As it happens, I am extensively familiar with Magic's non-tournament rule set, so if there needs to be any clarifications to the functional points in order for your argument to work, please do ask. Lastly, I am on mobile, so my response time may be rather slow. CMV!	I don't think this is a very elegant solution. You need to create these dud cards and have them put into the ecosystem. So either you print them as part of the print run and include them in packs with the broken card, in which case you knew that the card was broken, so why did you bother printing it in the first place? Or you print them afterwards and give them away for free, which is basically hemorrhaging the profits that you made earlier. There's also the deckbuilding issue where you're adding non-insignificant extra effort into determining if a deck is legal. Why is this solution better than just banning the card? --- >You need to create these dud cards and have them put into the ecosystem. So either you print them as part of the print run and include them in packs with the broken card, in which case you knew that the card was broken, so why did you bother printing it in the first place? Or you print them afterwards and give them away for free, which is basically hemorrhaging the profits that you made earlier. This is a good point that I hadn't thought about yet. Before I give a delta, what is your thought of introducing the Dud concept to a digital-only card game? --- A negative side of it is that you get extra info on your opponents deck based on the size of their deck. If you see they have a starting deck count of 65 after drawing their first hand, then you would know they have 12 dud cards in their deck, which gives you insight into their card counts. This become even more of a negative trait when it comes to limited formats(draft).	Oh, so that's what Pot of Greed does... It's an interesting idea, but I still feel like just banning those few cards would be preferable to forcing "duds" into a person's deck. Also, would this rule really negate the effects of overly powerful banned cards that give a player a huge advantage without giving them more cards? Would it apply to them? If this rule were to apply (and I know you didn't say it would) to, say, Black Lotus, I don't think having several "duds" would seriously outweigh the card's effect, but if you're legalizing overly powerful card advantage cards, I think you'd need to deal with other cards that give unfair advantages but are banned, just to be fair. --- >If this rule were to apply (and I know you didn't say it would) to, say, Black Lotus, I don't think having several "duds" would seriously outweigh the card's effect, but if you're legalizing overly powerful card advantage cards, I think you'd need to deal with other cards that give unfair advantages but are banned, just to be fair. It's good that you brought up Black Lotus. Since the power differential between a "typical" card and Black Lotus is so great, the amount of Dud cards required to offset this difference would be so high to the point where lugging around and shuffling the associated number of Dud cards wouldn't be very practical. Depending on the dexterity of the player, they may be unable to shuffle such a large deck between games so as to be completely discouraged from playing the card, leaving it in their sideboard or not even bringing it to tournaments. This would completely defeat the point of this implementation entirely. And, this wouldn't even be considering the ways to bypass the Dud cards, such as with tutors. There would be plenty of points stacked against my view here. !delta for you. I know that I didn't talk about the exact point you mentioned, but it still was sufficient. Very well put! --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NaturaSiveDeus ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NaturaSiveDeus)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	9fa2fg	CMV: In TCG's, the solution to free cards that produce raw card advantage is to introduce "completely useless cards" as a deckbuilding requirement	EDIT: Thanks for replying, everyone! I've given plenty of deltas to acknowledge how weak my view is. Hopefully I've gotten to everyone already! I apologize if I missed your comment. This is a rather weak view of mine. I only really began thinking about it after watching a video yesterday on Pot of Greed. The scope of this view applies only to TCG's with rather low card volatility. Notably, Pokémon TCG is not within the scope, due to how easily cards are accessed in that game. If you've ever played Yu-Gi-Oh, you likely know about the card Pot of Greed. You know, the one that everyone memes about. It allows you to draw two cards from your deck, for free, by using up the Pot of Greed card itself. This is +1 card advantage for no cost. Such huge card advantage on a single free card is problematic. Since it's free, it can be stocked into every deck, lowering the deckbuilding requirement from 40 to 39 cards. As I understand it, it's because of this that Pot of Greed is currently banned in Yu-Gi-Oh competitive play. My solution to this is to have these cards be legal (either restricted or not), but to force extra cards to be put in the deck as part of deck construction to compensate for having a lower probability of getting the cards needed to win. To avoid having the extra cards be significant enough to the point where they can also contribute to a win, these extra cards would be completely useless "Dud" cards. I actually have much more knowledge with Magic than with Yu-Gi-Oh, so the remainder of this post will use Magic terminology. It can also be applied to Yu-Gi-Oh with its equivalent terms and game elements. Magic's Divination does the following: >Divination {2}{U} >Sorcery >Draw two cards. The free, would-be-legal version would be something like this: >Free-Divination {0} >Sorcery >If ~ is in your deck, shuffle in ten (arbitrary number) Dud cards from outside the game before the game begins. >Draw two cards. The Dud cards put into the deck would reduce the chances of drawing the cards needed for the relevant strategy to win. Here are the functional points on how Dud cards would work: * They have no characteristics whatsoever, not even name. Effects that refer to name can't refer to "Dud" as a name. * They can be discarded, exiled, and put back into the library. However, these actions are completely invisible to the game, and do not trigger the relevant abilities. In addition, they cannot be willingly discarded, exiled, or put into the library by their owner; an effect must do this to the card without the owner's input. Notably, the owner of a Dud card can't discard it due to maximum hand size. * They are considered cards, so they increase hand size and library size by 1 for relevant effects. * As a special action, the owner of a Dud card may forfeit a land play to remove a Dud card in their hand from the game completely. This is distinct from exiling the Dud card. * Dud cards can't be cast or be on the battlefield. They are put into their owner's graveyard immediately as a state-based action. Logistical points: * Like with all other cards, whether to include these cards, or how they function, may be altered depending on a particular casual group's prior agreements. * In a tournament, it is the deck owner's responsibility to ensure any accompanying Dud cards are in the deck alongside the associated free cards. If a player is deck-checked in the middle of a game and the player's deck is illegal, they will be punished with the usual punishments for an illegal deck (or higher, if appropriate). * Dud cards removed from the game via the special action are to be shuffled back in between games in a match. * If a free card is somehow no longer in a deck but is also not in a player's sideboard, any Dud cards that may still be in the deck remain in the deck. * If a free card is put into the sideboard, the associated Dud cards may be removed from the deck if desired. Technically, a player would be allowed to put in as many Dud cards they wish into their deck without penalty, as long as the minimum required is in the deck. * Dud cards take zero sideboard space. If I recall correctly, some digital card games already have some notion of Dud cards. I think Hearthstone has some cards that put useless cards in hand? To qualify for a delta, you must specifically explain why this balance implementation of otherwise-broken cards is bad. Convincing me that one of my functional or logistical points should be changed might also qualify as a delta. I am aware that there are other mechanisms for making sure cards aren't always drawn (such as "Flip N coins, draw one for each heads"), but I am more concerned with the viability of this implementation in this post. As it happens, I am extensively familiar with Magic's non-tournament rule set, so if there needs to be any clarifications to the functional points in order for your argument to work, please do ask. Lastly, I am on mobile, so my response time may be rather slow. CMV!	Criminal_of_Thought	3	3	[ { "author": "neofederalist", "id": "e5uw9ab", "score": 2, "text": "I don't think this is a very elegant solution.\n\nYou need to create these dud cards and have them put into the ecosystem. So either you print them as part of the print run and include them in packs with the broken card, in which case you knew that the card was broken, so why did you bother printing it in the first place? Or you print them afterwards and give them away for free, which is basically hemorrhaging the profits that you made earlier. \n\nThere's also the deckbuilding issue where you're adding non-insignificant extra effort into determining if a deck is legal.\n\nWhy is this solution better than just banning the card?", "timestamp": 1536776024 }, { "author": "Criminal_of_Thought", "id": "e5uwo1u", "score": 1, "text": ">You need to create these dud cards and have them put into the ecosystem. So either you print them as part of the print run and include them in packs with the broken card, in which case you knew that the card was broken, so why did you bother printing it in the first place? Or you print them afterwards and give them away for free, which is basically hemorrhaging the profits that you made earlier. \n\nThis is a good point that I hadn't thought about yet. Before I give a delta, what is your thought of introducing the Dud concept to a digital-only card game?", "timestamp": 1536776374 }, { "author": "seji", "id": "e5ux33u", "score": 3, "text": "A negative side of it is that you get extra info on your opponents deck based on the size of their deck. If you see they have a starting deck count of 65 after drawing their first hand, then you would know they have 12 dud cards in their deck, which gives you insight into their card counts. This become even more of a negative trait when it comes to limited formats(draft). ", "timestamp": 1536776720 } ]	[ { "author": "NaturaSiveDeus", "id": "e5uwq3j", "score": 1, "text": "Oh, so that's what Pot of Greed does...\n\nIt's an interesting idea, but I still feel like just banning those few cards would be preferable to forcing \"duds\" into a person's deck.\n\nAlso, would this rule really negate the effects of overly powerful banned cards that give a player a huge advantage without giving them more cards? Would it apply to them? If this rule were to apply (and I know you didn't say it would) to, say, Black Lotus, I don't think having several \"duds\" would seriously outweigh the card's effect, but if you're legalizing overly powerful card advantage cards, I think you'd need to deal with other cards that give unfair advantages but are banned, just to be fair.", "timestamp": 1536776422 }, { "author": "Criminal_of_Thought", "id": "e5uxfux", "score": 1, "text": ">If this rule were to apply (and I know you didn't say it would) to, say, Black Lotus, I don't think having several \"duds\" would seriously outweigh the card's effect, but if you're legalizing overly powerful card advantage cards, I think you'd need to deal with other cards that give unfair advantages but are banned, just to be fair.\n\nIt's good that you brought up Black Lotus. Since the power differential between a \"typical\" card and Black Lotus is so great, the amount of Dud cards required to offset this difference would be so high to the point where lugging around and shuffling the associated number of Dud cards wouldn't be very practical. Depending on the dexterity of the player, they may be unable to shuffle such a large deck between games so as to be completely discouraged from playing the card, leaving it in their sideboard or not even bringing it to tournaments. This would completely defeat the point of this implementation entirely.\n\nAnd, this wouldn't even be considering the ways to bypass the Dud cards, such as with tutors. There would be plenty of points stacked against my view here.\n\n!delta for you. I know that I didn't talk about the exact point you mentioned, but it still was sufficient. Very well put! ", "timestamp": 1536777014 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "e5uxggc", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NaturaSiveDeus ([5∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NaturaSiveDeus)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1536777028 } ]	[ "e5uw9ab", "e5uwo1u", "e5ux33u" ]	[ "e5uwq3j", "e5uxfux", "e5uxggc" ]
CMV: RUSSIA INVADING EUROPE BEFORE 2022! Peter Zeihan's "The Russian grab". By 2022 Russia's army is expected have about half the recruiting base it had in the 2010s. This is due to demographic factors, basically the birthrate dropped to about half what it used to be after the fall of the Berlin Wall and it is not picking up anytime soon since Russia have some of the highest statistics on divorce and therefore fewer stable families with many children. Not only are they running out of young soldiers Russia is also running out of older experienced workers. In 1988 education was cut and not really picked up again. And with the average life expectancy for the current generation in their 50s being about 59, pretty soon the Russians will have to chose which part of their infrastructure the want to let deteriorate: the gas pipelines, the roads or the missiles. Then there is the fact that about a third of Russians are Tuberculosis positive and about 1% are HIV positive which is related to their opioid epidemic of which they consume 20% of the worlds production, far worse than the US. Beyond that there is the fact Russia is extremely capital poor, which only got worse as the investment they hoped would come from Europe into their energy networks never materialized partly because of the Euro-crisis. Furthermore while the ethnic Russians are dying of as a people the muslim population is not and it is radicalizing. To top it all of they have to worry about Chinese illegal immigration or invasion into Siberia where few Russians live and a lot of their resources are. Instead Russia is looking to the softer targets of the west to expand. If the Russians want to change their fate they have to seize an opportunity soon to invade eastern Europe and plug the large open and vulnerable areas of the Baltics, The Caucuses, Romania and Bulgaria down to the Carpathians as well as most of Poland. Without these buffer zones and the adjacent protecting mountain-chains Russia is vulnerable to invasion like they have been in the past by Swedes, Germans and Turks among others. They might be able to do that with the army they have right now and they might be able to defend those areas with the army they are about to have but they will Thus Russia has according to Peter Zeihan another few years to strike before there army seize being a threat. Sourses: Peter Zeihan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdOZEgaFIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdOZEgaFIw) Implosion of Russia: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbUSBhOmys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbUSBhOmys)	[removed] --- Besides, and let's be honest here, even as powerful as the Russian military is, I'm not sure that it could actually successfully conquer all of Europe. Don't get me wrong, it would get a long way, but I just don't think that it could finish the job. -edit- 1 more thing. A Russian invasion of Europe in 2022 would completely eliminate any chance of a US Civil War in 2025. Nothing brings us Americans together like a good ole world war, and a Russian invasion of Europe would be WW3. The US would almost assuredly fully mobilize for a counter-attack. --- "I'm not sure that it could actually successfully conquer all of Europe." Alright but at face value Russia certainly seems to have the upper hand against Poland when looking at raw numbers: Russia: "estimated that the Russian Armed Forces numbered about 1,027,000 active troops and in the region of 2,035,000 reserves" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\_Armed\_Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces) Poland: "(77,000 military)[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Land_Forces#cite_note-1) 1,010 Tanks 3,110 IFV/APC 250 Helicopters" I assume the numbers are somewhat similar in the rest of the EU countries. Furthermore I would assume Russian troops have more combat experience than European. --- The EU has more ships, twice the plains, more missiles, more manpower (trained and untrained), a more potent industry, better equipment, more artillery and more recon assets.	The Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are all part of both NATO and the EU. NATO has article 5 which means an attack on one is an attack on all. The EU has a mutual defense clause which means other nations have to help attacked nations. So basically, an invasion of any of these countries would cause war with the entire EU, the UK, USA, Canada, Turkey and Norway. How do you think Russia is going to win a war against such a large alliance? --- Good point. It is just that the US is loosing interest in NATO. The whole point of NATO was to make sure Europe would not go communist and join the USSR. The Europeans would follow the Americans lead in the containment of the USSR. The benefit for the US in this was the fact that the only other power on the planet that could challange the US militarily was the Soviets. But the USSR is no more and Russia today is not much of a threat TO THE US. So why should the US care what happens in eastern and central Europe? Trump has a point when he scolded the other Nato members for relying on Russian gas and want the US to protect them. This is how dependant eastern and central Europe are on Russian energy imports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector Estonia 100% Finland 100% Latvia 100% Lithuania 100% Slovakia 100% Bulgaria 97% Hungary 83% Slovenia 72% Greece 66% Czech Republic 63% Austria 62% Poland 57% Germany 46% If the Russians decide to turn of the pipleines eastern and central Europe would be freezing very soon. --- The US is only one player here. Even if Trump would step out of NATO you've still got Canada and all the European powers, which combined are still many times stronger than Russia. And Russian gas? That provides 35% of European gas use, which is [24% of the total energy use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union). So only 8% of Europe's energy consumption depends on Russia. In the case of war we could easily use stand-by coal power plants and electric heaters to prevent freezing to death. --- "Canada and all the European powers, which combined are still MANY times stronger than Russia." True when combined the Europeans have more manpower than the Russians. However correct me if I am mistaken but the Europeans did not send many troops, only sanctions, when Putin decided to annex Crimea, right? One could claim that Crimea was majority Russian anyways so it wasn't really an invasion but did that not break sharply with the post WW2-consensus of not invading other sovereign countries? A European guarantee to protect another NATO member does not seem to be all that dangerous in the eyes of the Russians. Or am I mistaken? " So only 8% of Europe's energy consumption depends on Russia. " That may be but Eastern Europe in particular is extremely dependent on Russian energy imports. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia\_in\_the\_European\_energy\_sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector) : "According to [Eurostat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostat), 30% of EU's petroleum oil import came from Russia in 2017. For Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Finland, more than 75 % of their imports in petroleum oils originated from Russia" And then there was the natural gas I mentioned above. About 60% of Estonia's energy is Oil and gas and almost all of it comes from Russia [https://future-economics.com/2015/02/25/estonia-energy-the-euro-and-elections/](https://future-economics.com/2015/02/25/estonia-energy-the-euro-and-elections/) (there is a pie-chart of Estonia's energy consumption in the middle of the article). About 45% in Latvia [https://www.enercee.net/countries/country-selection/latvia/](https://www.enercee.net/countries/country-selection/latvia/) About 50% in Lithuania [https://www.ceicdata.com/en/lithuania/energy-production-and-consumption/lt-electricity-production-from-oil-gas-and-coal-sources--of-total](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/lithuania/energy-production-and-consumption/lt-electricity-production-from-oil-gas-and-coal-sources--of-total) About 40% in Poland [https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.php?iso=POL](https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.php?iso=POL) Would that not be sufficient to dominate eastern Europe in a conflict?	a899qo	CMV: RUSSIA INVADING EUROPE BEFORE 2022! Peter Zeihan's "The Russian grab".	By 2022 Russia's army is expected have about half the recruiting base it had in the 2010s. This is due to demographic factors, basically the birthrate dropped to about half what it used to be after the fall of the Berlin Wall and it is not picking up anytime soon since Russia have some of the highest statistics on divorce and therefore fewer stable families with many children. Not only are they running out of young soldiers Russia is also running out of older experienced workers. In 1988 education was cut and not really picked up again. And with the average life expectancy for the current generation in their 50s being about 59, pretty soon the Russians will have to chose which part of their infrastructure the want to let deteriorate: the gas pipelines, the roads or the missiles. Then there is the fact that about a third of Russians are Tuberculosis positive and about 1% are HIV positive which is related to their opioid epidemic of which they consume 20% of the worlds production, far worse than the US. Beyond that there is the fact Russia is extremely capital poor, which only got worse as the investment they hoped would come from Europe into their energy networks never materialized partly because of the Euro-crisis. Furthermore while the ethnic Russians are dying of as a people the muslim population is not and it is radicalizing. To top it all of they have to worry about Chinese illegal immigration or invasion into Siberia where few Russians live and a lot of their resources are. Instead Russia is looking to the softer targets of the west to expand. If the Russians want to change their fate they have to seize an opportunity soon to invade eastern Europe and plug the large open and vulnerable areas of the Baltics, The Caucuses, Romania and Bulgaria down to the Carpathians as well as most of Poland. Without these buffer zones and the adjacent protecting mountain-chains Russia is vulnerable to invasion like they have been in the past by Swedes, Germans and Turks among others. They might be able to do that with the army they have right now and they might be able to defend those areas with the army they are about to have but they will Thus Russia has according to Peter Zeihan another few years to strike before there army seize being a threat. Sourses: Peter Zeihan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdOZEgaFIw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdOZEgaFIw) Implosion of Russia: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbUSBhOmys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNbUSBhOmys)	ywecur	4	4	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "ec8w0q7", "score": 2, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1545395487 }, { "author": "mrguse", "id": "ec8w61h", "score": 2, "text": "Besides, and let's be honest here, even as powerful as the Russian military is, I'm not sure that it could actually successfully conquer all of Europe. Don't get me wrong, it would get a long way, but I just don't think that it could finish the job. \n\n-edit-\n\n1 more thing. A Russian invasion of Europe in 2022 would completely eliminate any chance of a US Civil War in 2025. Nothing brings us Americans together like a good ole world war, and a Russian invasion of Europe would be WW3. The US would almost assuredly fully mobilize for a counter-attack.", "timestamp": 1545395677 }, { "author": "ywecur", "id": "ec8xlt0", "score": 0, "text": "\"I'm not sure that it could actually successfully conquer all of Europe.\"\n\nAlright but at face value Russia certainly seems to have the upper hand against Poland when looking at raw numbers:\n\nRussia: \"estimated that the Russian Armed Forces numbered about 1,027,000 active troops and in the region of 2,035,000 reserves\" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian\\_Armed\\_Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces) \n\nPoland: \"(77,000 military)[\\[1\\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Land_Forces#cite_note-1) \n1,010 Tanks \n3,110 IFV/APC \n 250 Helicopters\"\n\nI assume the numbers are somewhat similar in the rest of the EU countries. Furthermore I would assume Russian troops have more combat experience than European.", "timestamp": 1545397493 }, { "author": "White_Knightmare", "id": "ec8y250", "score": 2, "text": "The EU has more ships, twice the plains, more missiles, more manpower (trained and untrained), a more potent industry, better equipment, more artillery and more recon assets.", "timestamp": 1545398045 } ]	[ { "author": "verfmeer", "id": "ec8vsqx", "score": 3, "text": "The Baltic states, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are all part of both NATO and the EU. NATO has article 5 which means an attack on one is an attack on all. The EU has a mutual defense clause which means other nations have to help attacked nations. So basically, an invasion of any of these countries would cause war with the entire EU, the UK, USA, Canada, Turkey and Norway.\n\nHow do you think Russia is going to win a war against such a large alliance?", "timestamp": 1545395191 }, { "author": "ywecur", "id": "ec8wufe", "score": 2, "text": "Good point.\nIt is just that the US is loosing interest in NATO.\nThe whole point of NATO was to make sure Europe would not go communist and join the USSR. The Europeans would follow the Americans lead in the containment of the USSR. The benefit for the US in this was the fact that the only other power on the planet that could challange the US militarily was the Soviets. But the USSR is no more and Russia today is not much of a threat TO THE US. So why should the US care what happens in eastern and central Europe?\nTrump has a point when he scolded the other Nato members for relying on Russian gas and want the US to protect them. \nThis is how dependant eastern and central Europe are on Russian energy imports.\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector \n Estonia 100%\n Finland 100%\n Latvia 100%\n Lithuania 100%\n Slovakia 100%\n Bulgaria 97%\n Hungary 83%\n Slovenia 72%\n Greece 66%\n Czech Republic 63%\n Austria 62%\n Poland 57%\n Germany 46%\n\nIf the Russians decide to turn of the pipleines eastern and central Europe would be freezing very soon.", "timestamp": 1545396548 }, { "author": "verfmeer", "id": "ec8xotc", "score": 2, "text": "The US is only one player here. Even if Trump would step out of NATO you've still got Canada and all the European powers, which combined are still many times stronger than Russia.\n\nAnd Russian gas? That provides 35% of European gas use, which is [24% of the total energy use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union). So only 8% of Europe's energy consumption depends on Russia. In the case of war we could easily use stand-by coal power plants and electric heaters to prevent freezing to death.", "timestamp": 1545397598 }, { "author": "ywecur", "id": "ec8zzy1", "score": 1, "text": " \"Canada and all the European powers, which combined are still MANY times stronger than Russia.\"\n\nTrue when combined the Europeans have more manpower than the Russians. However correct me if I am mistaken but the Europeans did not send many troops, only sanctions, when Putin decided to annex Crimea, right? One could claim that Crimea was majority Russian anyways so it wasn't really an invasion but did that not break sharply with the post WW2-consensus of not invading other sovereign countries? A European guarantee to protect another NATO member does not seem to be all that dangerous in the eyes of the Russians. Or am I mistaken?\n\n\n\n\" So only 8% of Europe's energy consumption depends on Russia. \"\n\nThat may be but Eastern Europe in particular is extremely dependent on Russian energy imports. \n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia\\_in\\_the\\_European\\_energy\\_sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_sector) :\n\n \"According to [Eurostat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostat), 30% of EU's petroleum oil import came from Russia in 2017. For Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Finland, more than 75 % of their imports in petroleum oils originated from Russia\" \n\nAnd then there was the natural gas I mentioned above. \n\nAbout 60% of Estonia's energy is Oil and gas and almost all of it comes from Russia [https://future-economics.com/2015/02/25/estonia-energy-the-euro-and-elections/](https://future-economics.com/2015/02/25/estonia-energy-the-euro-and-elections/) (there is a pie-chart of Estonia's energy consumption in the middle of the article).\n\nAbout 45% in Latvia [https://www.enercee.net/countries/country-selection/latvia/](https://www.enercee.net/countries/country-selection/latvia/)\n\nAbout 50% in Lithuania [https://www.ceicdata.com/en/lithuania/energy-production-and-consumption/lt-electricity-production-from-oil-gas-and-coal-sources--of-total](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/lithuania/energy-production-and-consumption/lt-electricity-production-from-oil-gas-and-coal-sources--of-total)\n\nAbout 40% in Poland [https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.php?iso=POL](https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.php?iso=POL)\n\nWould that not be sufficient to dominate eastern Europe in a conflict?", "timestamp": 1545400207 } ]	[ "ec8w0q7", "ec8w61h", "ec8xlt0", "ec8y250" ]	[ "ec8vsqx", "ec8wufe", "ec8xotc", "ec8zzy1" ]
CMV: The hands off protest will do nothing to stop or even slow Trump, and will largely accomplish nothing. The large scale protests of the last 20 years seem to all be complete failures. Occupy wall street didn't fix the finance system. BLM didn't improve policing. The womens march didn't improve access to women's healthcare. This new movement will do the same. I think that in order to make a meaningful change your goals need to be specific and tailored. For example a good protest would be to go to a state house demanding that you want to be a sanctuary state. A bad protest would be to go to a state house to let them know how much you disagree with the president. A more effective (not the most effective) path towards social change would be email campaigns. You can directly tell the individual in power what change you want to see and why you want to see it and that you will not vote for them if this change is not enacted. Any perspectives would be appreciated especially evidence towards what makes a social movement successful vs unsuccessful and examples. Thanks!	\> Occupy wall street didn't fix the finance system But it did play a huge role in coalescing a popular understanding that there is a "1%" and a "99%". The language of economic inequality was added to as a result of that movement. \> BLM didn't improve policing. But it did play a huge role in coalescing a popular understanding of what police brutality looks like and how it's implemented. The language of civil rights was added to as a result of that movement. \> The womens march didn't improve access to women's healthcare. But it did play a huge role in coalescing abortion access as the defining issue for a generation of young women. The language of feminism and women's rights was added to as a result of that movement. I hear you on wanting to make specific, tailored strides towards discrete areas of progress. But if we're viewing society through the lens of oppressor / oppressed, there's way more of us oppressed. It takes a while for us all to get informed and on the same page about what's going on in the world. Huge protests help to make that work happen, so that the specific, tailored work you're imagining can happen down the line. --- Those protests did not enact change. In fact we are in a more oppressed place now regarding those issues. In the age of social media a protest is not the most effective way to inform and aware(if that is your goal). --- You think a bunch of cities/states changing their policy on choke holds/tear gas/police oversight/no-knock warrants after the BLM protests isn’t “enact[ing] change”? If a literal change in rules/policy isn’t “enacting change” then what is?	It tells people who care that there are pther people who support the cause and that they can and should fight --- I think people already knew that other people care about this before the protest. I don't think this protest made people say "wow I didn't know people didn't like TRUMP". Fighting is good but how you fight determines if you win or lose. --- Nah. People need to see this. Why stay and fight for a country that doesn’t want to be saved? The rest of the world also is getting anti-American because they think we all support this. Look in subs like r/Canada and r/europe	1jt1a4b	CMV: The hands off protest will do nothing to stop or even slow Trump, and will largely accomplish nothing.	The large scale protests of the last 20 years seem to all be complete failures. Occupy wall street didn't fix the finance system. BLM didn't improve policing. The womens march didn't improve access to women's healthcare. This new movement will do the same. I think that in order to make a meaningful change your goals need to be specific and tailored. For example a good protest would be to go to a state house demanding that you want to be a sanctuary state. A bad protest would be to go to a state house to let them know how much you disagree with the president. A more effective (not the most effective) path towards social change would be email campaigns. You can directly tell the individual in power what change you want to see and why you want to see it and that you will not vote for them if this change is not enacted. Any perspectives would be appreciated especially evidence towards what makes a social movement successful vs unsuccessful and examples. Thanks!	callmejeremy0	3	3	[ { "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep", "id": "mlqphq8", "score": 217, "text": "\\> Occupy wall street didn't fix the finance system\n\nBut it did play a huge role in coalescing a popular understanding that there is a \"1%\" and a \"99%\". The language of economic inequality was added to as a result of that movement. \n\n \\> BLM didn't improve policing.\n\nBut it did play a huge role in coalescing a popular understanding of what police brutality looks like and how it's implemented. The language of civil rights was added to as a result of that movement. \n\n\\> The womens march didn't improve access to women's healthcare.\n\nBut it did play a huge role in coalescing abortion access as the defining issue for a generation of young women. The language of feminism and women's rights was added to as a result of that movement. \n\nI hear you on wanting to make specific, tailored strides towards discrete areas of progress. But if we're viewing society through the lens of oppressor / oppressed, there's way more of us oppressed. It takes a while for us all to get informed and on the same page about what's going on in the world. Huge protests help to make that work happen, so that the specific, tailored work you're imagining can happen down the line.", "timestamp": 1743965452 }, { "author": "callmejeremy0", "id": "mlqrixt", "score": -22, "text": "Those protests did not enact change. In fact we are in a more oppressed place now regarding those issues. In the age of social media a protest is not the most effective way to inform and aware(if that is your goal).", "timestamp": 1743966109 }, { "author": "MikeOcherts", "id": "mlqvbdw", "score": 26, "text": "You think a bunch of cities/states changing their policy on choke holds/tear gas/police oversight/no-knock warrants after the BLM protests isn’t “enact[ing] change”?\n\nIf a literal change in rules/policy isn’t “enacting change” then what is?", "timestamp": 1743967345 } ]	[ { "author": "ClutchReverie", "id": "mlqpazm", "score": 12, "text": "It tells people who care that there are pther people who support the cause and that they can and should fight", "timestamp": 1743965392 }, { "author": "callmejeremy0", "id": "mlqqreu", "score": 0, "text": "I think people already knew that other people care about this before the protest. I don't think this protest made people say \"wow I didn't know people didn't like TRUMP\".\n\nFighting is good but how you fight determines if you win or lose.", "timestamp": 1743965862 }, { "author": "ClutchReverie", "id": "mlqrpeo", "score": 3, "text": "Nah. People need to see this. Why stay and fight for a country that doesn’t want to be saved? The rest of the world also is getting anti-American because they think we all support this. Look in subs like r/Canada and r/europe", "timestamp": 1743966169 } ]	[ "mlqphq8", "mlqrixt", "mlqvbdw" ]	[ "mlqpazm", "mlqqreu", "mlqrpeo" ]
CMV: First Cousins Should Legally Be Allowed to Procreate My argument is simple. The child of first cousins has only a minor increase in the inheritance of genetic disorders. Most sources put it at about 4.5% compared to the average background risk of 3% for unrelated couples ([Source 1](https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview)). Furthermore, if someone believes that marrying cousins should be illegal, they would also have to concede that having a child when the mother is in her mid-30s should also be illegal since this carries an equivalent amount of increased risk for the child when compared to a 20 y/o mother ([Source 2](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age)). *Update: I have been convinced that my position is wrong. Here's why:* I think if I were to reduce my argument into a nutshell, it's this: Cousin marriage is only slightly bad when done once. When done repeatedly, it is much worse. But we shouldn't ban something if it is only significantly bad when done numerous times. But this breaks down when we think of anything that carries risk. For instance, let's say there's a 1% chance of an accident when speeding. Well, that's pretty low if you just drive to work once. But if I drive to work everyday for years, there's an added effect. And indeed, we do enforce speed limits because of this. So, my premise is wrong - we should ban something if its risk is additive over several iterations. Have a !delta. And the old age comparison is faulty in that we can't reverse time. Cousins can marry other people and have healthy offspring. I an older mother doesn't have that option and do the best with what she has. Thus, it's far more unfair to forbid them from procreating. I see now that this analogy is faulty. Thank you to everyone who commented and discussed this with me.	>The child of first cousins has only a minor increase in the inheritance of genetic disorders. Most sources put it at about 4.5% compared to the average background risk of 3% for unrelated couples ([Source 1](https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview)). That source comes from a site called CousinCouples, which is for legal procreation between cousins. Let us see from a peer-reviewed souce such as the American Journal of Medical Genetics ([Source 1](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajmg.a.10020)). The source reports that there is a higher correlation between parental consanguinity \[a fancy way to say cousin/sibling parents\] and the manifestation of cardiac defects in newborns than parental non-consanguinity after controlling for geographical differences. --- I concede that my source was not the most reputable and I should have chosen a better one. Yours seems to be better, but it doesn't seem to specify the amount increase in genetic risk, only that the data was statistically significant for most heart conditions. I'm sure the numbers I'm looking for are in the paper, but unfortunately, it only gives us access to the abstract. Another [source](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320) I've found does suggest that the numbers may not be what I had initially thought: >For all these reasons, the increased population-level genetic risks arising from cousin marriage can only be estimated empirically, and those estimates are likely to be specific to particular populations in specific environments. But that still doesn't justify government intervention. After all, the government makes no other laws regarding marriage when it comes to age or autosomal dominant diseases such as Huntington's Disease, which has a 50% chance of inheritance from a carrier of the allele. There aren't even any laws regarding smoking/drinking while pregnant. Why should cousin marriage be any different? --- >I'm sure the numbers I'm looking for are in the paper, but unfortunately, it only gives us access to the abstract. [Here's](https://i.imgur.com/ZoFNwPR.png) the relevant part of the results.	The issue is that cousin marriage is actually not just a single partner process. The practice of cousin marriage is so common as to produce whole family trees in which cousins keep marrying. And it's repeated cousin marriage that is the real kicker. It's a serious and deadly problem in places like Pakistan. I think it could therefore be reasonable that first cousins could marry, but it would be something that would necessarily have to be monitored and limited and it's far easier to just stop it entirely. And I think we have to look at the psychology involved here. I think it may reasonably work out if you're separated from your cousin by reasonable amounts and therefore your cousin is just another almost stranger who is somehow related to you. It's quite another if they're raised with you. Either way, the taboo against cousin marriage is such that I think it probably is indicative of being somehow lacking and therefore turning towards easy alternatives even if that breaks the taboo, since the majority of people, in the presence of that would naturally choose not to engage in it. And so we have to ask whether these couples could be healthy in modern western society, and whether they start out healthy and whether actually they don't want to marry each other especially as much as they feel like they're lacking other potential partners. If that's the case, it's tough luck, but I think for everyone's sake, it deserves to be banned because it's somewhat illegitimate as a relationship. --- I realize that cousin marriage is often a done for several generations, but does that justify government intervention? By that logic, we would need to also ban families that tend to have children later in life. And we should also ban mother's with the dangerous autosomal dominant alleles such as Huntington's Disease, which would effectively give the child a 50% chance of inheriting a disease. Even with repeated cousin marriage, the genetic risk is low enough that the government should not be involved. --- The issue is that cousin marriage actually occurs on such an incredibly wide scale that it causes serious problems. In Pakistan, it's suggested that it's 70% cousin marriage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346199 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm > Statistics on the danger of ingrown genetics were publicized in 2005 when a BBC report claimed Pakistani-Britons produce 33% of the nation’s children with genetic illnesses, even though they account for only 3% of the births. (55% of Pakistani-Britons marry first cousins.) 10% of these newborns either die in infancy, or endure a serious disability. Pakistani-Britons who are first cousins are, claimed the report, 13X more likely to have children with recessive disorders than the general population. To say that the risks are inconsequential, is just wrong. They are clearly having an effect. When 3% of the population account for 33% of the population's genetic illnesses, it would suggest that there are serious issues in doing this. And that's why the government has to step in. Also, I don't not believe in preventing people from having kids based on the extreme risks that they provide to the child's life. I don't necessarily advocate for it, because I understand the pain and heartbreak that would cause, but luckily, the escape clause for that is that these diseases are not so extremely common as to damage such a huge amount of the population. I think there's fair argument that there are some things we can allow to slip through the cracks while we learn how to tackle the issue. Cousin marriage, however, has been a traditional choice with disastrous consequences that has affected such a huge amount of the population.	94ga1z	CMV: First Cousins Should Legally Be Allowed to Procreate	My argument is simple. The child of first cousins has only a minor increase in the inheritance of genetic disorders. Most sources put it at about 4.5% compared to the average background risk of 3% for unrelated couples ([Source 1](https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview)). Furthermore, if someone believes that marrying cousins should be illegal, they would also have to concede that having a child when the mother is in her mid-30s should also be illegal since this carries an equivalent amount of increased risk for the child when compared to a 20 y/o mother ([Source 2](https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age)). *Update: I have been convinced that my position is wrong. Here's why:* I think if I were to reduce my argument into a nutshell, it's this: Cousin marriage is only slightly bad when done once. When done repeatedly, it is much worse. But we shouldn't ban something if it is only significantly bad when done numerous times. But this breaks down when we think of anything that carries risk. For instance, let's say there's a 1% chance of an accident when speeding. Well, that's pretty low if you just drive to work once. But if I drive to work everyday for years, there's an added effect. And indeed, we do enforce speed limits because of this. So, my premise is wrong - we should ban something if its risk is additive over several iterations. Have a !delta. And the old age comparison is faulty in that we can't reverse time. Cousins can marry other people and have healthy offspring. I an older mother doesn't have that option and do the best with what she has. Thus, it's far more unfair to forbid them from procreating. I see now that this analogy is faulty. Thank you to everyone who commented and discussed this with me.	archermitch	3	3	[ { "author": "ddxme", "id": "e3kzom9", "score": 8, "text": ">The child of first cousins has only a minor increase in the inheritance of genetic disorders. Most sources put it at about 4.5% compared to the average background risk of 3% for unrelated couples ([Source 1](https://www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview)).\n\nThat source comes from a site called CousinCouples, which is for legal procreation between cousins. Let us see from a peer-reviewed souce such as the American Journal of Medical Genetics ([Source 1](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajmg.a.10020)). The source reports that there is a higher correlation between parental consanguinity \\[a fancy way to say cousin/sibling parents\\] and the manifestation of cardiac defects in newborns than parental non-consanguinity after controlling for geographical differences.", "timestamp": 1533365149 }, { "author": "archermitch", "id": "e3lhg4k", "score": 1, "text": "I concede that my source was not the most reputable and I should have chosen a better one. Yours seems to be better, but it doesn't seem to specify the amount increase in genetic risk, only that the data was statistically significant for most heart conditions. I'm sure the numbers I'm looking for are in the paper, but unfortunately, it only gives us access to the abstract.\n\nAnother [source](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060320) I've found does suggest that the numbers may not be what I had initially thought:\n\n>For all these reasons, the increased population-level genetic risks arising from cousin marriage can only be estimated empirically, and those estimates are likely to be specific to particular populations in specific environments.\n\nBut that still doesn't justify government intervention. After all, the government makes no other laws regarding marriage when it comes to age or autosomal dominant diseases such as Huntington's Disease, which has a 50% chance of inheritance from a carrier of the allele. There aren't even any laws regarding smoking/drinking while pregnant. Why should cousin marriage be any different?", "timestamp": 1533395327 }, { "author": "thehellbean", "id": "e3lm0cw", "score": 2, "text": ">I'm sure the numbers I'm looking for are in the paper, but unfortunately, it only gives us access to the abstract.\n\n[Here's](https://i.imgur.com/ZoFNwPR.png) the relevant part of the results.", "timestamp": 1533400032 } ]	[ { "author": "justtogetridoflater", "id": "e3l4adx", "score": 1, "text": "The issue is that cousin marriage is actually not just a single partner process. The practice of cousin marriage is so common as to produce whole family trees in which cousins keep marrying. And it's repeated cousin marriage that is the real kicker. It's a serious and deadly problem in places like Pakistan. \n\nI think it could therefore be reasonable that first cousins could marry, but it would be something that would necessarily have to be monitored and limited and it's far easier to just stop it entirely.\n\nAnd I think we have to look at the psychology involved here. I think it may reasonably work out if you're separated from your cousin by reasonable amounts and therefore your cousin is just another almost stranger who is somehow related to you. It's quite another if they're raised with you. Either way, the taboo against cousin marriage is such that I think it probably is indicative of being somehow lacking and therefore turning towards easy alternatives even if that breaks the taboo, since the majority of people, in the presence of that would naturally choose not to engage in it.\n\nAnd so we have to ask whether these couples could be healthy in modern western society, and whether they start out healthy and whether actually they don't want to marry each other especially as much as they feel like they're lacking other potential partners. If that's the case, it's tough luck, but I think for everyone's sake, it deserves to be banned because it's somewhat illegitimate as a relationship.\n", "timestamp": 1533374441 }, { "author": "archermitch", "id": "e3lfofc", "score": 1, "text": "I realize that cousin marriage is often a done for several generations, but does that justify government intervention? By that logic, we would need to also ban families that tend to have children later in life. And we should also ban mother's with the dangerous autosomal dominant alleles such as Huntington's Disease, which would effectively give the child a 50% chance of inheriting a disease. Even with repeated cousin marriage, the genetic risk is low enough that the government should not be involved.", "timestamp": 1533393362 }, { "author": "justtogetridoflater", "id": "e3ll8q1", "score": 1, "text": "The issue is that cousin marriage actually occurs on such an incredibly wide scale that it causes serious problems. In Pakistan, it's suggested that it's 70% cousin marriage. \n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12346199\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4442010.stm\n\n> Statistics on the danger of ingrown genetics were publicized in 2005 when a BBC report claimed Pakistani-Britons produce 33% of the nation’s children with genetic illnesses, even though they account for only 3% of the births. (55% of Pakistani-Britons marry first cousins.) 10% of these newborns either die in infancy, or endure a serious disability. Pakistani-Britons who are first cousins are, claimed the report, 13X more likely to have children with recessive disorders than the general population.\n\nTo say that the risks are inconsequential, is just wrong. They are clearly having an effect. When 3% of the population account for 33% of the population's genetic illnesses, it would suggest that there are serious issues in doing this. And that's why the government has to step in. \n\nAlso, I don't not believe in preventing people from having kids based on the extreme risks that they provide to the child's life. I don't necessarily advocate for it, because I understand the pain and heartbreak that would cause, but luckily, the escape clause for that is that these diseases are not so extremely common as to damage such a huge amount of the population. I think there's fair argument that there are some things we can allow to slip through the cracks while we learn how to tackle the issue. Cousin marriage, however, has been a traditional choice with disastrous consequences that has affected such a huge amount of the population.", "timestamp": 1533399252 } ]	[ "e3kzom9", "e3lhg4k", "e3lm0cw" ]	[ "e3l4adx", "e3lfofc", "e3ll8q1" ]
CMV:Its okay to use "men" to describe a group of people with penises, in the context of there being multiple genders. I was at a social gathering and the topic of Bukkake came up as someone didn't know what it meant. When i explained it i said "Its when a group of men..." and someone who identifies as gender fluid corrected me and said "A group of people with penises, as men aren't the only people that have them" This isn't a view about gender or how people identify, I don't fully understand myself but I don't doubt the legitimise of gender fluid or trans people or anything like that. My view is more about describing a group of people of one biological sex, than in this context there isn't as far as i know an alternative word that doesn't imply gender. While most people would infer gender from that statement, I didn't intend to imply it. So I'm open to having my understanding and view changed but i don't see how my statement was inaccurate or offensive to non binary genders. > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	While the person who corrected you is technically right that there could have been people with penises who were not men, they also probably could have skipped speaking up with such a carping technicality. --- Can you explain how they are technically correct please --- Some hermaphrodites are women yet have penises for instance.	This is what's becoming more and more of the distinction: "Male"/"Female" refer to biological sex, "Man"/"Woman" refer to gender. So if you're being as specific to say "a group of people with penises" and you must make some sort of distinction regarding their sex, saying that they're males would be the most appropriate and fitting way to go. But sort of like you mentioned, most people don't know that there's even a distinction, and it doesn't feel as natural in conversation to say "males" instead of "men," "guys," etc. However, as far as the feelings of transgendered individuals go, I'm sure it's just so much more appreciated if they are identified and referred to as the gender by which they identify. So even if a trans woman still has her penis, you're just not doing her or anyone in the trans community any favors by referring to her as a male/man. Unless the biological sex is relevant to the conversation (i.e. medical), there's no reason that I can think of why a trans woman can't just be labeled as a woman. Edit --- I don't disagree with that, if I was talking about a specific person or people I would use the language they identified with or as I interpreted them to represent themselves as but in this specific context while I don't want to exclude anyone the gender of the people isn't relevant. --- Could you maybe give an example of this context? I might be misunderstanding.	6qfn5u	CMV:Its okay to use "men" to describe a group of people with penises, in the context of there being multiple genders.	I was at a social gathering and the topic of Bukkake came up as someone didn't know what it meant. When i explained it i said "Its when a group of men..." and someone who identifies as gender fluid corrected me and said "A group of people with penises, as men aren't the only people that have them" This isn't a view about gender or how people identify, I don't fully understand myself but I don't doubt the legitimise of gender fluid or trans people or anything like that. My view is more about describing a group of people of one biological sex, than in this context there isn't as far as i know an alternative word that doesn't imply gender. While most people would infer gender from that statement, I didn't intend to imply it. So I'm open to having my understanding and view changed but i don't see how my statement was inaccurate or offensive to non binary genders. > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	nothingsb9	3	3	[ { "author": "uncannywally", "id": "dkwwxk9", "score": 14, "text": "While the person who corrected you is technically right that there could have been people with penises who were not men, they also probably could have skipped speaking up with such a carping technicality.", "timestamp": 1501391294 }, { "author": "nothingsb9", "id": "dkwx06h", "score": 3, "text": "Can you explain how they are technically correct please ", "timestamp": 1501391411 }, { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dkwx709", "score": 2, "text": "Some hermaphrodites are women yet have penises for instance.", "timestamp": 1501391718 } ]	[ { "author": "milk____steak", "id": "dkwx2ex", "score": 1, "text": "This is what's becoming more and more of the distinction: \"Male\"/\"Female\" refer to biological sex, \"Man\"/\"Woman\" refer to gender. So if you're being as specific to say \"a group of people with penises\" and you must make some sort of distinction regarding their sex, saying that they're males would be the most appropriate and fitting way to go. But sort of like you mentioned, most people don't know that there's even a distinction, and it doesn't feel as natural in conversation to say \"males\" instead of \"men,\" \"guys,\" etc.\n\nHowever, as far as the feelings of transgendered individuals go, I'm sure it's just so much more appreciated if they are identified and referred to as the gender by which they identify. So even if a trans woman still has her penis, you're just not doing her or anyone in the trans community any favors by referring to her as a male/man. Unless the biological sex is relevant to the conversation (i.e. medical), there's no reason that I can think of why a trans woman can't just be labeled as a woman.\n\nEdit", "timestamp": 1501391511 }, { "author": "nothingsb9", "id": "dkwxafe", "score": 1, "text": "I don't disagree with that, if I was talking about a specific person or people I would use the language they identified with or as I interpreted them to represent themselves as but in this specific context while I don't want to exclude anyone the gender of the people isn't relevant. ", "timestamp": 1501391879 }, { "author": "milk____steak", "id": "dkwxg6t", "score": 1, "text": "Could you maybe give an example of this context? I might be misunderstanding. ", "timestamp": 1501392153 } ]	[ "dkwwxk9", "dkwx06h", "dkwx709" ]	[ "dkwx2ex", "dkwxafe", "dkwxg6t" ]
CMV: Nihilism is as unhealthy as religion So, I've been having an existential crisis recently. I used to believe in god and an afterlife, but after many church visits and my fundamentalist religious teacher, I've turned away, and in some way felt more free than I had before. I've had one major existential crisis before, and it was cured with time, I'm having another major one, however this one feels like reality isn't real, and is much more taxing. So I, as a curious person who wants answers to things, looked up research, asked people on their opinions, asked myself questions, tried motivating myself, asked others for motivation, etc. etc. During these last four months or so of my existential crisis, I've stumbled upon nihilism. If I understood correctly, it states that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and in some cases it says that the only true value life has is the one we create for it, but that too will be meaningless after death. Which brings us to a second part of the post: death. It's always scared me. I don't like the idea of living forever, but at the same time the idea of ceasing to exist isn't very appealing either. Now, here's my point: I think accepting that life has no meaning and just saying that anything that people claim to believe is false simply because there's not enough evidence for it, is as bad as just assuming life has meaning and that whatever belief you believe in is automatically true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. What I mean by this, is while I doubt there's someone that specifically created us and watches over us, and that is the meaning to life (doing his bidding, obeying him) etc., saying that life has no meaning because there's a scientific reason to everything, is just as wrong. I don't mean to say that science is wrong because it's not finding any evidence of meaning. I'm not sure if I've explained myself, English isn't my first language and mistakes here or there might be present. If anybody needs clarification I'll provide it. I have an existential crisis, aspergers, an open mind, and a will to find an answer to my question. CMV Reddit.	I think your mixing existentialism and nihilism together in some ways. Nihilism is the belief that there is no meaning in the universe and everything we do is pointless. Existentialism is the belief that the universe contains no meaning, but that it is ones interior world that really matters. We create meaning in the world, through our words, our beliefs, our actions. Because there is no God to tell us how to behave, we are infinitely free to do what we want, yet this means we are also, each of us, infinitely responsible for ourselves, each other, and the world we share. This responsibility is too much for people to take, so they find ways to pretend their choices are meaningless or that they really don't have any control over their actions (this is called Bad Faith). If 'meaning' was in the universe itself, or in God, we would have no control over it, and our lives would be superfluous. Without God, every action we take is meaningful. Death will not rob our actions of meaning, each action we take will the world and the people that will live in it after we are gone. We only have one chance at life, we have to make it count. (I'd suggest reading Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism if you're interested in this line of thought) --- I don't know how to award deltas on mobile, so I'll do it when I get back. But thanks for clearing that up. I was confused on the whole subject, and this somewhat calmed me down as well. Thank you. --- I basically want to continue kublahkoala's thought from Nietzsche's perspective. Nietzsche is often accused of being a nihilist but he actually thought it was the Christians who were nihilists because they were putting the value of living past life, into the after life; however, Nietzsche found no grounds for believing in a reality beyond this one (what would that even be?), so he concluded that Christians were putting the value of life into nothing. His response was to deny the dialectic of the true v. apparent worlds: "The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one." -- The Twilight of The Idols If nihilism is merely the rejection of a world beyond this one, and we have ever felt any meaning, then nihilism is simply the placing of the meaning of life in the world that is right in front of us, the here and now. That seems to be healthier than religion as it grounds the meaningful in the tangible, the everyday. Sure, existential crisis are bound to abound, but I have found much more comfort in a cup of coffee (and the meaning contained therein) then through grasping at an Absolute beyond anyone's reach.	Congrats of freeing yourself from fundamentalism. But Nihilism is way, way worse than Religion - at least Religion through the lens of reason can be cherry picked for metaphors and analogies that approximate the nature of the human condition, and truths about life death and rebirth and forgiveness and redemption, truths about virtues and vices leading to happiness or misery. A half-right ancient mythology that makes you seek the truth is better than a half-baked ideology that stops you in your tracks. Nihilism is anti-meaning - that life has no objective meaning, purpose, or value, that there is no inherent morality, that knowledge is not possible, and that reality does not actually exist. It's a disbelief in reality, which leads to a detachment from reality. It's no wonder you feel the way you do. (The cure without religion is certainty from first principles: something exists, existence exists, I (my consciousness) exists are your unbeatable axioms from which your relationship with reality can be renewed. These axioms are the foundation of certainty and truth that can never be broken because both the act of affirming them or denying them are proofs of them - since affirmations and denials are themselves "somethings" that exist). --- Thank you, this answered my question, changed my view, and gave me a new perspective on the world. !Delta --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/swearrengen ([106∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/swearrengen)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "swearrengen" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6qbosj	CMV: Nihilism is as unhealthy as religion	So, I've been having an existential crisis recently. I used to believe in god and an afterlife, but after many church visits and my fundamentalist religious teacher, I've turned away, and in some way felt more free than I had before. I've had one major existential crisis before, and it was cured with time, I'm having another major one, however this one feels like reality isn't real, and is much more taxing. So I, as a curious person who wants answers to things, looked up research, asked people on their opinions, asked myself questions, tried motivating myself, asked others for motivation, etc. etc. During these last four months or so of my existential crisis, I've stumbled upon nihilism. If I understood correctly, it states that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and in some cases it says that the only true value life has is the one we create for it, but that too will be meaningless after death. Which brings us to a second part of the post: death. It's always scared me. I don't like the idea of living forever, but at the same time the idea of ceasing to exist isn't very appealing either. Now, here's my point: I think accepting that life has no meaning and just saying that anything that people claim to believe is false simply because there's not enough evidence for it, is as bad as just assuming life has meaning and that whatever belief you believe in is automatically true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. What I mean by this, is while I doubt there's someone that specifically created us and watches over us, and that is the meaning to life (doing his bidding, obeying him) etc., saying that life has no meaning because there's a scientific reason to everything, is just as wrong. I don't mean to say that science is wrong because it's not finding any evidence of meaning. I'm not sure if I've explained myself, English isn't my first language and mistakes here or there might be present. If anybody needs clarification I'll provide it. I have an existential crisis, aspergers, an open mind, and a will to find an answer to my question. CMV Reddit.	Stelum	3	3	[ { "author": "kublahkoala", "id": "dkw1npl", "score": 10, "text": "I think your mixing existentialism and nihilism together in some ways. Nihilism is the belief that there is no meaning in the universe and everything we do is pointless. \nExistentialism is the belief that the universe contains no meaning, but that it is ones interior world that really matters. We create meaning in the world, through our words, our beliefs, our actions. Because there is no God to tell us how to behave, we are infinitely free to do what we want, yet this means we are also, each of us, infinitely responsible for ourselves, each other, and the world we share. This responsibility is too much for people to take, so they find ways to pretend their choices are meaningless or that they really don't have any control over their actions (this is called Bad Faith).\nIf 'meaning' was in the universe itself, or in God, we would have no control over it, and our lives would be superfluous. Without God, every action we take is meaningful. Death will not rob our actions of meaning, each action we take will the world and the people that will live in it after we are gone. We only have one chance at life, we have to make it count.\n(I'd suggest reading Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism if you're interested in this line of thought)", "timestamp": 1501345036 }, { "author": "Stelum", "id": "dkw1qjg", "score": 2, "text": "I don't know how to award deltas on mobile, so I'll do it when I get back. But thanks for clearing that up. I was confused on the whole subject, and this somewhat calmed me down as well. Thank you.", "timestamp": 1501345141 }, { "author": "Koledas", "id": "dkw2mie", "score": 4, "text": "I basically want to continue kublahkoala's thought from Nietzsche's perspective. Nietzsche is often accused of being a nihilist but he actually thought it was the Christians who were nihilists because they were putting the value of living past life, into the after life; however, Nietzsche found no grounds for believing in a reality beyond this one (what would that even be?), so he concluded that Christians were putting the value of life into nothing. His response was to deny the dialectic of the true v. apparent worlds:\n\n\"The true world -- we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.\" -- The Twilight of The Idols\n\nIf nihilism is merely the rejection of a world beyond this one, and we have ever felt any meaning, then nihilism is simply the placing of the meaning of life in the world that is right in front of us, the here and now. That seems to be healthier than religion as it grounds the meaningful in the tangible, the everyday. Sure, existential crisis are bound to abound, but I have found much more comfort in a cup of coffee (and the meaning contained therein) then through grasping at an Absolute beyond anyone's reach.", "timestamp": 1501346333 } ]	[ { "author": "swearrengen", "id": "dkw3nzm", "score": 0, "text": "Congrats of freeing yourself from fundamentalism.\n\nBut Nihilism is way, way worse than Religion - at least Religion through the lens of reason can be cherry picked for metaphors and analogies that approximate the nature of the human condition, and truths about life death and rebirth and forgiveness and redemption, truths about virtues and vices leading to happiness or misery. A half-right ancient mythology that makes you seek the truth is better than a half-baked ideology that stops you in your tracks.\n\nNihilism is anti-meaning - that life has no objective meaning, purpose, or value, that there is no inherent morality, that knowledge is not possible, and that reality does not actually exist. It's a disbelief in reality, which leads to a detachment from reality. It's no wonder you feel the way you do.\n\n(The cure without religion is certainty from first principles: something exists, existence exists, I (my consciousness) exists are your unbeatable axioms from which your relationship with reality can be renewed. These axioms are the foundation of certainty and truth that can never be broken because both the act of affirming them or denying them are proofs of them - since affirmations and denials are themselves \"somethings\" that exist).\n\n\n\n\n\n\n", "timestamp": 1501347706 }, { "author": "Stelum", "id": "dkwd2h4", "score": 1, "text": "Thank you, this answered my question, changed my view, and gave me a new perspective on the world. !Delta", "timestamp": 1501360581 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dkwd356", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/swearrengen ([106∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/swearrengen)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"swearrengen\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1501360607 } ]	[ "dkw1npl", "dkw1qjg", "dkw2mie" ]	[ "dkw3nzm", "dkwd2h4", "dkwd356" ]
CMV: A child with reasonable levels of pain and suffering should be allowed to choose eithanasia. If a child, for example, experiences a condition, be it treatable or not, that causes unbearable pain, that child should be legally allowed to take their own life with medical supervision. Euthanasia is a painless means to end undeserving suffering on a person that is not well equipped to endure that pain. They ultimately know the severity of their condition, and it is unfair to choose a life they do not want to live for them. Even if you wait until they are 18, you serve only to prolong their suffering and expose them to dying from their ailments which is more unfair. I am of the opinion that, given they are provided with the necessary education, they should be allowed to choose a peaceful death. If i were to put a lower bar for the age, the lowest would be 8, and the decision should take a reasonable amount of time (such as a month or so).	You have to define reasonable. A child as young as 8 may prefer euthanasia to getting their tooth pulled. You say a child as young as 8 may make this decision even if their condition is treatable? That seems extreme. --- My definition of reasonable is a level of pain that leaves them crying for an uncomfortable amount of time. It is also why i gave a large time period for that decision to be made. --- My nephew cried for an hour because of a shot. Kids' perception of reality, especially when it comes to pain, is not the same as an adult. I'll never forget when my parents were redoing the kitchen floors and pulled up all of the trim, there were a bunch of nails sticking out. Well being idiot kids that don't listen to parents, I ran through the kitchen and stepped on one. Thing is, I didn't realize I stepped on it until my mom asked why there was blood all over the floor. I suddenly realized one of my feet felt like there was a quarter or something on the bottom of it. I vividly rember flipping my foot over and seeing the nail and going into instant panic mode. For years I would swear that nail had been as thick as my finger. Fast forward 10 years when we're redoing the floors again and I'm 16, I saw those nails again and realized they were as thin as pencil lead. Something that was physically so small had been disorted in my immature mind to be vastly bigger than it was. That's why kids should not be able to make medical decisions for themselves.	I instead think that a more appropriate course of action would be to make euthanasia a more comfortable and destigmatized option for permanent and/or severe illnesses/injuries. If my child had a condition that made it virtually impossible to live a normal life to a reasonable extent, I would be happy to learn about euthanasia as an option. In the end, I feel that for minors, the ability to take their own life is too much weight for them to bear on their own, and should require legal guardian assistance. --- Tricky bit what you have said is that a guardian can coach or coerce a child to make a decision they do not ultimately want. --- Perhaps not make it an option until they’re over a certain age then. If the child falls under that threshold, it would be strictly up to the hospital if the parents/guardians allow it to be part of the conversation.	e2cnl0	CMV: A child with reasonable levels of pain and suffering should be allowed to choose eithanasia.	If a child, for example, experiences a condition, be it treatable or not, that causes unbearable pain, that child should be legally allowed to take their own life with medical supervision. Euthanasia is a painless means to end undeserving suffering on a person that is not well equipped to endure that pain. They ultimately know the severity of their condition, and it is unfair to choose a life they do not want to live for them. Even if you wait until they are 18, you serve only to prolong their suffering and expose them to dying from their ailments which is more unfair. I am of the opinion that, given they are provided with the necessary education, they should be allowed to choose a peaceful death. If i were to put a lower bar for the age, the lowest would be 8, and the decision should take a reasonable amount of time (such as a month or so).	It_is_not_that_hard	3	3	[ { "author": "Whatwhatwhata", "id": "f8urjug", "score": 11, "text": "You have to define reasonable. \n\n\nA child as young as 8 may prefer euthanasia to getting their tooth pulled. You say a child as young as 8 may make this decision even if their condition is treatable? That seems extreme.", "timestamp": 1574840730 }, { "author": "It_is_not_that_hard", "id": "f8ursxs", "score": 1, "text": "My definition of reasonable is a level of pain that leaves them crying for an uncomfortable amount of time. It is also why i gave a large time period for that decision to be made.", "timestamp": 1574841066 }, { "author": "boyhero97", "id": "f8utnxi", "score": 10, "text": "My nephew cried for an hour because of a shot. Kids' perception of reality, especially when it comes to pain, is not the same as an adult. I'll never forget when my parents were redoing the kitchen floors and pulled up all of the trim, there were a bunch of nails sticking out. Well being idiot kids that don't listen to parents, I ran through the kitchen and stepped on one. Thing is, I didn't realize I stepped on it until my mom asked why there was blood all over the floor. I suddenly realized one of my feet felt like there was a quarter or something on the bottom of it. I vividly rember flipping my foot over and seeing the nail and going into instant panic mode. For years I would swear that nail had been as thick as my finger. Fast forward 10 years when we're redoing the floors again and I'm 16, I saw those nails again and realized they were as thin as pencil lead. Something that was physically so small had been disorted in my immature mind to be vastly bigger than it was. That's why kids should not be able to make medical decisions for themselves.", "timestamp": 1574843643 } ]	[ { "author": "V3N3N0", "id": "f8uu19m", "score": 4, "text": "I instead think that a more appropriate course of action would be to make euthanasia a more comfortable and destigmatized option for permanent and/or severe illnesses/injuries. If my child had a condition that made it virtually impossible to live a normal life to a reasonable extent, I would be happy to learn about euthanasia as an option. In the end, I feel that for minors, the ability to take their own life is too much weight for them to bear on their own, and should require legal guardian assistance.", "timestamp": 1574844183 }, { "author": "It_is_not_that_hard", "id": "f8uu6ap", "score": 1, "text": "Tricky bit what you have said is that a guardian can coach or coerce a child to make a decision they do not ultimately want.", "timestamp": 1574844390 }, { "author": "V3N3N0", "id": "f8uu9ks", "score": 3, "text": "Perhaps not make it an option until they’re over a certain age then. If the child falls under that threshold, it would be strictly up to the hospital if the parents/guardians allow it to be part of the conversation.", "timestamp": 1574844526 } ]	[ "f8urjug", "f8ursxs", "f8utnxi" ]	[ "f8uu19m", "f8uu6ap", "f8uu9ks" ]
CMV: I believe banning guns is a bad legislative action. In light of recent events our nation has been stirred up in a frenzy over gun control, and rightly so. It is a discussion we need to have as a country, however too many people believe the answer is to ban assault rifles and rifles like it. I'm here to say that will not help, it is a bad legislative practice and that we are missing the bigger picture. First off my reason against banning weapons is that it is legislatively innefective. The problem is when you decide to ban a weapon you need to characterize the parts that make it dangerous. California where I live, has done this and decided that having features like pistol grips and detachable magazines make weapons that have them more dangerous. These features are not dangerous at all in their own right but when put into a semi auto platform, improve the performance of the weapon. Essentially these laws punish manufacturers for making a product "too good". The real issue though is its focus on assault rifles which make up less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Meanwhile 38 revolvers 9mm pistols and 22 caliber firearms have not had any meaningful regulations put on them yet they make up the majority of gun deaths. The other major issue is moving the goal posts. When you characterize a weapon by its parts, it's easy to simply change a part to make the weapon conform to the law. Here is a good example of how the industry has gotten around the pistol grip laws https://www.ar-15lowerpartskit.com/california-compliant-ar-15-what-you-need-to-know/amp/ California has spent so much time and effort to regulate these firearms but they have spent next to 0 time enforcing them. There are millions of pre ban ar15's still sitting in there safes. California made the law to make them illegal but won't pay to enforce the law. There is another big problem with this type of legislation, it is far from future proof. Here is a good example of a rifle we might have to deal with in the future. https://youtu.be/CI7XLFN-hD4 This is a caseless rifle, as it stands in prototype phase in California, we would need to write laws that specifically cover the mechanisms of this rifle. It is not semi nor full auto as it can shoot multiple barrels at a time, it doesn't use a traditional magazine, it doesn't expel a cartridge. This is why legislating the guns themselves is a bad idea, it is prone to inaccuracies, victim to changes in design, hard to get started and keep current and a general waste of tax payers time and money. So of course the big question is WHAT DO WE DO? The biggest step was actually taken the other day. We need to be able to study the phenomenon of mass shooting incidents, which congress is unable to allow thanks to efforts by the NRA. It is important to get the right info into the right hands. Now unfortunately our administration right now is about as corrupt and nonsensical as it gets but there are many good people at the CDC right now who are willing to tackle this issue. Beyond researching the problem one of the simplest things we can do is registration. This is obviously a hot button issue, especially with those who adhere strictly to the 2nd amendment. However registration is the most effective legislation passed in terms of gun control. Here is a good site that breaks down the merits of registration http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/ Beyond registering, I believe we need more data before we make any more laws to regulate firearms or their users. We simply do not know enough to make radical enough changes to prevent these mass shooting incidents. The mass shooting problem may also be the effects of our income inequality, political radicalization, religious zealotry, societal decay, or mental instability or all of the above. I also believe in strong emphasis in gun education. Having taken a hunter safety course I believe this is a good model to follow for first time gun buyers. Respect and responsibility should be the first thing anyone understands about their firearm. Secondly they should be trained to be able to use their firearm for the situations it was built for. Maybe not make it mandatory but give incentives for taking training courses. Also we need to make it ok in this nation for the mentally ill to seek help, and for others to recognize these symptoms. We need to make it so gun owners under mental instability can rely on friends or family to hold their weapons while they get through a tough time. If someone is becoming radical and their beliefs become violent we need to be able to address it in an effective way. I'm all for ideas, critiques and criticism. We solve problems by talking, not yelling at each other. Edit: I came up with an idea for gun registration maybe even republicans would like, would like some feedback. Instead of having your name put on a national list you get issued a registration number that is the only thing attached to the serial number, make and model of the firearm. The only people that have your name and address attached to that registration number is your county clerks office. If a law agency requests the identity of your registration number the county clerk is obligated to contact you within 10 days and state the agency involved and a case number. I think this would be a good way to quash the fears some have over registering and being put on a list. It may balloon government a bit, but what doesnt.	While I agree with some of what you said, such as a cosmetic feature like pistol grip is a foolish factor to define a gun for a ban. I agree that research is needed that can help to identify people that should not be in possession of a gun. I disagree with your conclusion about not focusing on gun bans. Gun bans do work! (The US process this statement) Machine guns (full auto) are illegal, and the law works. Bad guys are not running around and using machine guns all over the place. They are very rare. What is it about that law that is so effective? Imho it is because the law addresses function, full auto. I believe it is time to continue the work into function by defining 3 key aspects that would be the basis for future gun laws. 1. Rate of fire. How fast the gun can fire. We already started in this direction with the full auto ban. And it seems that the Trump administration is going after bump stops. (It is rare, but will give credit when they do something good). We need to define adult won't based on rate if fire, and decide what the cut off level is. I am not sure though if there is much more we can realistically do on this specific function. Which brings us to #2, how long can the gun sustain that rate of fire. This is a big function as it relates to how much damage can be done. One area of this function is magazine size. Perhaps even discussing removable magazines might be worthwhile. And finally #3, the damage the bullet causes. One factor that the M16 (AR15) has is that it uses a small bullet with large charge so when the bullet hours it carries more kinetic force to do more damage. Is this a function that should be regulated? What about hollow point, dum dum, armor piercing, etc.... ? I believe if we discuss these specific functions that we can create effective laws to reduce mass casualties. --- These are better metrics than how California has decided to measure guns. This is reasonable. !delta --- Man, you gave that delta easy. Machine guns (full auto) are illegal, and the law works. Bad guys are not running around and using machine guns all over the place. They are very rare. Bad guys were not running all over the place with machine guns before 1986 either. There's just the one case of two people using machine guns to rob a bank that later got into a shootout with police, and they killed 0 people. Which brings me to: Rate of fire. How fast the gun can fire. Jerry Michulek can fire 12 rounds out of a revolver in under 3 seconds. The gun can fire 240 rounds a minute! This is arbitrary in its distinction, and is also beyond innefective in terms of addressing any portion of gun violence in America. This is a big function as it relates to how much damage can be done. One area of this function is magazine size. Perhaps even discussing removable magazines might be worthwhile. The parkland shooter used 10 round magazines, and reloading is still something a shooter can do. If you say that you want to ban or highly restrict all guns with detachable magazines, you have effectively made criminals of 99% of law abiding citizens, or you have said that most of the 400 million guns in America are restricted. What does this solve, exactly? One factor that the M16 (AR15) has is that it uses a small bullet with large charge so when the bullet hours it carries more kinetic force to do more damage. And yet in many states it is not legal to hunt with a .223 rifle because it doesn't guarantee a clean kill, and is more likely to injure. What about hollow point, dum dum, armor piercing, etc.... ? Armor piercing rounds are already restricted, and banning hollow points because you want someone who is shot with a gun multiplte times to be slightly bleeding less is a bit silly don't you think? My overal point here, is that all of the changes you suggested are either arbirtary, wide-sweeping, or based on a position of ignorance.	Similar CMV submitted 16 days ago (and probably even more recently than that): https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/82vg5p/cmv_an_assault_weapons_ban_would_be_pointless_in/ It seems that the whole sub is about America, transsexuality and guns... --- Well it's better than talking about Trump amirite? --- I'm not sure it is... It's an American problem only that most of the world is not concerned about (while the POTUS does make changes in policy that affect everyone) because mass shootings happens less frequently in the rest of the high-income countries together. To be exact, [they have 31% of global mass shooters but only represent 5% of the global population](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html). Now look at other high-income countries policies about guns, and you'll see that banning guns is not such a bad idea. Hunting rifles are often permitted but heavily controlled in most European countries and guess what: they don't have a mass-shooting problems. > First off my reason against banning weapons is that it is legislatively ineffective. Not if the regulation is on all guns. Period. Which is done in most countries in Europe and many other high-income countries in the world where this mass-shooting problem doesn't exist	86tu86	CMV: I believe banning guns is a bad legislative action.	In light of recent events our nation has been stirred up in a frenzy over gun control, and rightly so. It is a discussion we need to have as a country, however too many people believe the answer is to ban assault rifles and rifles like it. I'm here to say that will not help, it is a bad legislative practice and that we are missing the bigger picture. First off my reason against banning weapons is that it is legislatively innefective. The problem is when you decide to ban a weapon you need to characterize the parts that make it dangerous. California where I live, has done this and decided that having features like pistol grips and detachable magazines make weapons that have them more dangerous. These features are not dangerous at all in their own right but when put into a semi auto platform, improve the performance of the weapon. Essentially these laws punish manufacturers for making a product "too good". The real issue though is its focus on assault rifles which make up less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Meanwhile 38 revolvers 9mm pistols and 22 caliber firearms have not had any meaningful regulations put on them yet they make up the majority of gun deaths. The other major issue is moving the goal posts. When you characterize a weapon by its parts, it's easy to simply change a part to make the weapon conform to the law. Here is a good example of how the industry has gotten around the pistol grip laws https://www.ar-15lowerpartskit.com/california-compliant-ar-15-what-you-need-to-know/amp/ California has spent so much time and effort to regulate these firearms but they have spent next to 0 time enforcing them. There are millions of pre ban ar15's still sitting in there safes. California made the law to make them illegal but won't pay to enforce the law. There is another big problem with this type of legislation, it is far from future proof. Here is a good example of a rifle we might have to deal with in the future. https://youtu.be/CI7XLFN-hD4 This is a caseless rifle, as it stands in prototype phase in California, we would need to write laws that specifically cover the mechanisms of this rifle. It is not semi nor full auto as it can shoot multiple barrels at a time, it doesn't use a traditional magazine, it doesn't expel a cartridge. This is why legislating the guns themselves is a bad idea, it is prone to inaccuracies, victim to changes in design, hard to get started and keep current and a general waste of tax payers time and money. So of course the big question is WHAT DO WE DO? The biggest step was actually taken the other day. We need to be able to study the phenomenon of mass shooting incidents, which congress is unable to allow thanks to efforts by the NRA. It is important to get the right info into the right hands. Now unfortunately our administration right now is about as corrupt and nonsensical as it gets but there are many good people at the CDC right now who are willing to tackle this issue. Beyond researching the problem one of the simplest things we can do is registration. This is obviously a hot button issue, especially with those who adhere strictly to the 2nd amendment. However registration is the most effective legislation passed in terms of gun control. Here is a good site that breaks down the merits of registration http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/ Beyond registering, I believe we need more data before we make any more laws to regulate firearms or their users. We simply do not know enough to make radical enough changes to prevent these mass shooting incidents. The mass shooting problem may also be the effects of our income inequality, political radicalization, religious zealotry, societal decay, or mental instability or all of the above. I also believe in strong emphasis in gun education. Having taken a hunter safety course I believe this is a good model to follow for first time gun buyers. Respect and responsibility should be the first thing anyone understands about their firearm. Secondly they should be trained to be able to use their firearm for the situations it was built for. Maybe not make it mandatory but give incentives for taking training courses. Also we need to make it ok in this nation for the mentally ill to seek help, and for others to recognize these symptoms. We need to make it so gun owners under mental instability can rely on friends or family to hold their weapons while they get through a tough time. If someone is becoming radical and their beliefs become violent we need to be able to address it in an effective way. I'm all for ideas, critiques and criticism. We solve problems by talking, not yelling at each other. Edit: I came up with an idea for gun registration maybe even republicans would like, would like some feedback. Instead of having your name put on a national list you get issued a registration number that is the only thing attached to the serial number, make and model of the firearm. The only people that have your name and address attached to that registration number is your county clerks office. If a law agency requests the identity of your registration number the county clerk is obligated to contact you within 10 days and state the agency involved and a case number. I think this would be a good way to quash the fears some have over registering and being put on a list. It may balloon government a bit, but what doesnt.	skralogy	3	3	[ { "author": "estgad", "id": "dw8btkh", "score": 2, "text": "While I agree with some of what you said, such as a cosmetic feature like pistol grip is a foolish factor to define a gun for a ban.\nI agree that research is needed that can help to identify people that should not be in possession of a gun.\nI disagree with your conclusion about not focusing on gun bans.\n\nGun bans do work! (The US process this statement)\n\nMachine guns (full auto) are illegal, and the law works. Bad guys are not running around and using machine guns all over the place. They are very rare.\n\nWhat is it about that law that is so effective?\nImho it is because the law addresses function, full auto.\n\nI believe it is time to continue the work into function by defining 3 key aspects that would be the basis for future gun laws.\n\n1. Rate of fire. How fast the gun can fire. We already started in this direction with the full auto ban. And it seems that the Trump administration is going after bump stops. (It is rare, but will give credit when they do something good).\nWe need to define adult won't based on rate if fire, and decide what the cut off level is. I am not sure though if there is much more we can realistically do on this specific function.\n\nWhich brings us to #2, how long can the gun sustain that rate of fire.\nThis is a big function as it relates to how much damage can be done.\nOne area of this function is magazine size. Perhaps even discussing removable magazines might be worthwhile.\n\nAnd finally #3, the damage the bullet causes.\nOne factor that the M16 (AR15) has is that it uses a small bullet with large charge so when the bullet hours it carries more kinetic force to do more damage.\nIs this a function that should be regulated?\nWhat about hollow point, dum dum, armor piercing, etc.... ?\n\nI believe if we discuss these specific functions that we can create effective laws to reduce mass casualties.\n\n", "timestamp": 1521930046 }, { "author": "skralogy", "id": "dw8byj5", "score": 0, "text": "These are better metrics than how California has decided to measure guns. This is reasonable.\n!delta", "timestamp": 1521930208 }, { "author": "I_am_Andrew_Ryan", "id": "dw8huf3", "score": 3, "text": "Man, you gave that delta easy.\n\n\n\n\n Machine guns (full auto) are illegal, and the law works. Bad guys are not running around and using machine guns all over the place. They are very rare.\n\nBad guys were not running all over the place with machine guns before 1986 either. There's just the one case of two people using machine guns to rob a bank that later got into a shootout with police, and they killed 0 people. Which brings me to:\n\n Rate of fire. How fast the gun can fire.\n\nJerry Michulek can fire 12 rounds out of a revolver in under 3 seconds. The gun can fire 240 rounds a minute! This is arbitrary in its distinction, and is also beyond innefective in terms of addressing any portion of gun violence in America.\n\n This is a big function as it relates to how much damage can be done. One area of this function is magazine size. Perhaps even discussing removable magazines might be worthwhile.\n\nThe parkland shooter used 10 round magazines, and reloading is still something a shooter can do.\n\nIf you say that you want to ban or highly restrict all guns with detachable magazines, you have effectively made criminals of 99% of law abiding citizens, or you have said that most of the 400 million guns in America are restricted. What does this solve, exactly?\n\n One factor that the M16 (AR15) has is that it uses a small bullet with large charge so when the bullet hours it carries more kinetic force to do more damage.\n\nAnd yet in many states it is not legal to hunt with a .223 rifle because it doesn't guarantee a clean kill, and is more likely to injure.\n\n What about hollow point, dum dum, armor piercing, etc.... ?\n\nArmor piercing rounds are already restricted, and banning hollow points because you want someone who is shot with a gun multiplte times to be slightly bleeding less is a bit silly don't you think?\n\nMy overal point here, is that all of the changes you suggested are either arbirtary, wide-sweeping, or based on a position of ignorance.\n", "timestamp": 1521937010 } ]	[ { "author": "lonnib", "id": "dw7rdkz", "score": 3, "text": "Similar CMV submitted 16 days ago (and probably even more recently than that): https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/82vg5p/cmv_an_assault_weapons_ban_would_be_pointless_in/\n\nIt seems that the whole sub is about America, transsexuality and guns...", "timestamp": 1521906658 }, { "author": "skralogy", "id": "dw7rzed", "score": 0, "text": "Well it's better than talking about Trump amirite?", "timestamp": 1521907356 }, { "author": "lonnib", "id": "dw7sl6q", "score": 4, "text": "I'm not sure it is... It's an American problem only that most of the world is not concerned about (while the POTUS does make changes in policy that affect everyone) because mass shootings happens less frequently in the rest of the high-income countries together. To be exact, [they have 31% of global mass shooters but only represent 5% of the global population](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html).\n\nNow look at other high-income countries policies about guns, and you'll see that banning guns is not such a bad idea. Hunting rifles are often permitted but heavily controlled in most European countries and guess what: they don't have a mass-shooting problems. \n\n> First off my reason against banning weapons is that it is legislatively ineffective.\n\nNot if the regulation is on all guns. Period. Which is done in most countries in Europe and many other high-income countries in the world where this mass-shooting problem doesn't exist", "timestamp": 1521908051 } ]	[ "dw8btkh", "dw8byj5", "dw8huf3" ]	[ "dw7rdkz", "dw7rzed", "dw7sl6q" ]
CMV - I should not go to Iran because as a young female, I would be made to feel uncomfortable. My partner wants to go to Iran for a week and is trying to convince me it's a good holiday destination for culture and history. I don't doubt this. However I'm under the impression that women in Iran are viewed as second class citizens which does not sit well with me. First of all, I've never properly visited the middle east and my knowledge of Iran is limited, so I'd love to be proven wrong on any of my points. From asking some friends and family and looking around a little on the web, it's my understanding that I will be expected to wear clothes outside of my comfort zone (covering my legs/head in the heat does not sound fun), will not be able to hug/kiss my boyfriend in public without potentially offending locals (not that I'll particularly want to but i would like the choice to do so without having to worry about doing so without thinking) and may get treated in a way different to what I am used to simply because I am a woman. My motive for not going is fed both by a morality point of view (I strongly disagree with the way women are still not seen as equals and by visting the country and funding them via tourism I am somehow endorsing this) and from a comfort point of view (I want to relax on holiday and don't want to have to worry about whether what I'm doing or saying is upsetting people). CMV! EDIT: If it makes a difference, I am a white British female and my partner is a white Jewish male. EDIT 2: My mind hasn't been this stimulated in quite a while - thanks everyone! It's bed time for me but I'd love to continue the discussion tomorrow. I've definitely had my mind opened a bit more to the idea of going. Thanks all, night night!	I remember watching a youtube series a while back. It was a guy on a motorbike travelling across asia and the middle east. I think he went thought China, Pakistan, India, Iran... whole bunch of countries. He met a lot of assholes along the way, but in Iran everyone was welcoming and giving him gifts and fruit everywhere he went. He notes how surprised he was at the way he was treated in Iran compared to other countries. Anyways, the point is don't judge a book by its cover. Don't listen to news stories or what people say based on rumors... go there and see for yourself. I mean yeah, you could go off to thailand and chill at Khao San road with the thousand other tourists bumming around... but I believe the point of travel is to experience new things, which means getting out of your comfort zone and going down the road less travelled.... because that's where the real adventure lies. --- Thanks for your reply. I obviously haven't seen the documentary you're referring to and I hate to make sweeping statements but I would say a man's experience of travelling through certain countries would be different to a woman's. As for experiencing new things, I absolutely agree. I've done some challenging trips so far including staying and volunteering at 2 children's orphanages in impoverished areas of Peru and Nepal. "Easy" holidays are great and I've been lucky enough to have been on plenty but challenges are important to me too. That's why I made this CMV after all! Getting out of my comfort zone is something I actively look for (when I'm feeling brave enough) but I'm not sure potentially being treated like a second class citizen on holiday is one of them. I appreciate that as a tourist I'll be treated with a certain level of respect but am I okay with interacting with a culture that finds it acceptable to stone a woman to death? I don't know if I am. --- >potentially being treated like a second class citizen on holiday is one of them. I perfectly understand the feeling, but I don't think this is how things would go down. I'll speak to you as someone who lived in Iran for part of my life and went back to visit recently, but also as someone who embraces rational and egalitarian values above all others. Is not easy to meaningfully distinguish between the tradition and laws of a country and the motivation of its people, but in this instance even more than others, is crucial, because you'd find an ocean in between the two. Take me. Supposing you are american, I'm not welcome in your country (which I visited before luckly), and not in a figurative sense. I'm an Italian citizen who never got as much as a parking ticket, but after I've visited Iran I received a letter voiding my ESTA. If I had to ascribe this sentiment (arguably worst than being a second class citizen) to the american people, or even to a significant part of it, I'd never have visited the US, but I would have been very wrong; people there have been welcoming and amazing to me, nothing less. Stoning a woman to death is no more ok with the Iranian people than is for american people to deny me a vacation in your country, or giving life sentences to non-violent offenders in private prisons, to find a more apt analogy. These are things that certainly reflect the worst part of the country and are sadly there still, but have more to do with repression and control than with the genuine sentiment of the people. More than ever in Iran. I lived there, my blonde and Italian mother lived there for many years, and although the restrictions you are talking about are 100% real, the symbolic judgment behind it is not shared by the people. If anything you'll attract admiration, hospitality and curiosity from the locals at an annoying rate, and be considered above the general population, only for being a foreigner, for giving them a breath of fresh air from outside the country. In short, you will be forced by the law to wear stuff you normally wouldn't, and people will talk to your husband before they talk to you, but I can assure you people there normally don't consider women inferior. There's definitely another side to the story I encourage you to see for yourself. [Consider a different opinion on the matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iran#Western_perceptions_of_Iranian_women), or [Maybe just watch a movie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832382/) before making up your mind.	[removed] --- Are you there with the military or as an employee? And have you spent any time in Iran yourself? --- No I haven't, so my answer is pretty biased I'll admit. Edit: I was there in Bahrain on deployment.	6xmlny	CMV - I should not go to Iran because as a young female, I would be made to feel uncomfortable.	My partner wants to go to Iran for a week and is trying to convince me it's a good holiday destination for culture and history. I don't doubt this. However I'm under the impression that women in Iran are viewed as second class citizens which does not sit well with me. First of all, I've never properly visited the middle east and my knowledge of Iran is limited, so I'd love to be proven wrong on any of my points. From asking some friends and family and looking around a little on the web, it's my understanding that I will be expected to wear clothes outside of my comfort zone (covering my legs/head in the heat does not sound fun), will not be able to hug/kiss my boyfriend in public without potentially offending locals (not that I'll particularly want to but i would like the choice to do so without having to worry about doing so without thinking) and may get treated in a way different to what I am used to simply because I am a woman. My motive for not going is fed both by a morality point of view (I strongly disagree with the way women are still not seen as equals and by visting the country and funding them via tourism I am somehow endorsing this) and from a comfort point of view (I want to relax on holiday and don't want to have to worry about whether what I'm doing or saying is upsetting people). CMV! EDIT: If it makes a difference, I am a white British female and my partner is a white Jewish male. EDIT 2: My mind hasn't been this stimulated in quite a while - thanks everyone! It's bed time for me but I'd love to continue the discussion tomorrow. I've definitely had my mind opened a bit more to the idea of going. Thanks all, night night!	Pinkfinch	3	3	[ { "author": "jsfly", "id": "dmgy31d", "score": 51, "text": "I remember watching a youtube series a while back. It was a guy on a motorbike travelling across asia and the middle east. I think he went thought China, Pakistan, India, Iran... whole bunch of countries. He met a lot of assholes along the way, but in Iran everyone was welcoming and giving him gifts and fruit everywhere he went. He notes how surprised he was at the way he was treated in Iran compared to other countries. \n\nAnyways, the point is don't judge a book by its cover. Don't listen to news stories or what people say based on rumors... go there and see for yourself. I mean yeah, you could go off to thailand and chill at Khao San road with the thousand other tourists bumming around... but I believe the point of travel is to experience new things, which means getting out of your comfort zone and going down the road less travelled.... because that's where the real adventure lies.", "timestamp": 1504366745 }, { "author": "Pinkfinch", "id": "dmgyhet", "score": 42, "text": "Thanks for your reply. I obviously haven't seen the documentary you're referring to and I hate to make sweeping statements but I would say a man's experience of travelling through certain countries would be different to a woman's. \n\nAs for experiencing new things, I absolutely agree. I've done some challenging trips so far including staying and volunteering at 2 children's orphanages in impoverished areas of Peru and Nepal. \"Easy\" holidays are great and I've been lucky enough to have been on plenty but challenges are important to me too. That's why I made this CMV after all! \n\nGetting out of my comfort zone is something I actively look for (when I'm feeling brave enough) but I'm not sure potentially being treated like a second class citizen on holiday is one of them. I appreciate that as a tourist I'll be treated with a certain level of respect but am I okay with interacting with a culture that finds it acceptable to stone a woman to death? I don't know if I am.", "timestamp": 1504367274 }, { "author": "DirtCrystal", "id": "dmh1ahm", "score": 47, "text": ">potentially being treated like a second class citizen on holiday is one of them.\n\nI perfectly understand the feeling, but I don't think this is how things would go down.\n\nI'll speak to you as someone who lived in Iran for part of my life and went back to visit recently, but also as someone who embraces rational and egalitarian values above all others.\n\nIs not easy to meaningfully distinguish between the tradition and laws of a country and the motivation of its people, but in this instance even more than others, is crucial, because you'd find an ocean in between the two.\n\nTake me. Supposing you are american, I'm not welcome in your country (which I visited before luckly), and not in a figurative sense. I'm an Italian citizen who never got as much as a parking ticket, but after I've visited Iran I received a letter voiding my ESTA. If I had to ascribe this sentiment (arguably worst than being a second class citizen) to the american people, or even to a significant part of it, I'd never have visited the US, but I would have been very wrong; people there have been welcoming and amazing to me, nothing less.\n\nStoning a woman to death is no more ok with the Iranian people than is for american people to deny me a vacation in your country, or giving life sentences to non-violent offenders in private prisons, to find a more apt analogy. These are things that certainly reflect the worst part of the country and are sadly there still, but have more to do with repression and control than with the genuine sentiment of the people.\n\nMore than ever in Iran. I lived there, my blonde and Italian mother lived there for many years, and although the restrictions you are talking about are 100% real, the symbolic judgment behind it is not shared by the people. If anything you'll attract admiration, hospitality and curiosity from the locals at an annoying rate, and be considered above the general population, only for being a foreigner, for giving them a breath of fresh air from outside the country.\n \nIn short, you will be forced by the law to wear stuff you normally wouldn't, and people will talk to your husband before they talk to you, but I can assure you people there normally don't consider women inferior. \n\nThere's definitely another side to the story I encourage you to see for yourself. [Consider a different opinion on the matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Iran#Western_perceptions_of_Iranian_women), or [Maybe just watch a movie](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832382/) before making up your mind. ", "timestamp": 1504370862 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "dmgyg06", "score": 162, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1504367223 }, { "author": "CivilizedPeoplee", "id": "dmgyqip", "score": 8, "text": "Are you there with the military or as an employee?\n\nAnd have you spent any time in Iran yourself?", "timestamp": 1504367605 }, { "author": "JustCallMeHubz", "id": "dmgz675", "score": 1, "text": "No I haven't, so my answer is pretty biased I'll admit.\n\nEdit: I was there in Bahrain on deployment.", "timestamp": 1504368162 } ]	[ "dmgy31d", "dmgyhet", "dmh1ahm" ]	[ "dmgyg06", "dmgyqip", "dmgz675" ]
CMV: I shouldn’t sell my indie mobile game for $50K, even though I was just laid off and have student loan debt. I was recently laid off, and I’m now considering whether or not to sell the mobile game I’ve been developing for a while now. A big company recently offered $50,000 to acquire the game, but they would significantly change the direction and tone of it. I’ve been only using my own money and time, and it’s starting to gain some modest traction. Financially, the offer is tempting. I have student loan debt (think >$100k), and this would take a large chunk out of it. It would also give me breathing room while I look for a new job. But emotionally, I feel deeply attached to the game. I've made a lot of games before but this feels different to me. I worry I’d regret letting it go especially knowing it might grow into something bigger if I kept going, or even be worth more in the long run. Right now, I believe I should not sell it. Even though $50K is meaningful for me financially, I think the creative ownership and emotional investment outweigh the short-term gain. I’ve already sacrificed so much for the game (sunken cost fallacy, probably?). I feel like selling now would be giving up on something I haven’t fully explored yet. I’m open to being convinced otherwise. I'm really torn about this and don't want to choose irrationally. Would this be a good exit for a game that is just 3 months old? Everyone keeps telling me that scaling a game by myself is much harder. Am I being selfish for not letting the game have a real chance with the company who has more resources than I do? Isn't the point of creating a game so others can see it, no matter who owns it? I'm not sure anymore. CMV.	You can sell it and start working with next one. You have learnt a lot and can make second one much better and faster. --- Thank you! The thing is... I'm not sure that I can. This one has a backstory for me personally and I'm not sure what I would actually be selling away. I think this is the best one I could have come with --- You know how they say "kill your darlings" ? I think this fits. There will never be a creation of yours you're not attached to on some level, that will not be a piece of you. But if you ever hope to monetise it, you have to recognise that the pragmatics of the publication will somehow inform the piece itself. This was true Shakespearean plays, and it was true of Flappy Bird, Disco Elysium, etc... This is quite an extreme example, but it may also open the door (with that same company in the future, maybe?) for you to produce other works you think deserve to exist as you establish yourself as a competent creative worth backing.	Sell that mfr ASAP! With 50k, take 6 months and work on your next one while job shopping. --- It will take 6 months to job hunt for me. The market is terrible right now in US. I'll also be kinda worried they could shelve the game as it might be a potential competitor. --- Isn’t that the best outcome possible? If they shelve the game, you have free run to reexplore it.	1jsu6fp	CMV: I shouldn’t sell my indie mobile game for $50K, even though I was just laid off and have student loan debt.	I was recently laid off, and I’m now considering whether or not to sell the mobile game I’ve been developing for a while now. A big company recently offered $50,000 to acquire the game, but they would significantly change the direction and tone of it. I’ve been only using my own money and time, and it’s starting to gain some modest traction. Financially, the offer is tempting. I have student loan debt (think >$100k), and this would take a large chunk out of it. It would also give me breathing room while I look for a new job. But emotionally, I feel deeply attached to the game. I've made a lot of games before but this feels different to me. I worry I’d regret letting it go especially knowing it might grow into something bigger if I kept going, or even be worth more in the long run. Right now, I believe I should not sell it. Even though $50K is meaningful for me financially, I think the creative ownership and emotional investment outweigh the short-term gain. I’ve already sacrificed so much for the game (sunken cost fallacy, probably?). I feel like selling now would be giving up on something I haven’t fully explored yet. I’m open to being convinced otherwise. I'm really torn about this and don't want to choose irrationally. Would this be a good exit for a game that is just 3 months old? Everyone keeps telling me that scaling a game by myself is much harder. Am I being selfish for not letting the game have a real chance with the company who has more resources than I do? Isn't the point of creating a game so others can see it, no matter who owns it? I'm not sure anymore. CMV.	Music_Maniac_19	3	3	[ { "author": "Z7-852", "id": "mlp3jut", "score": 14, "text": "You can sell it and start working with next one.\n\nYou have learnt a lot and can make second one much better and faster.", "timestamp": 1743946481 }, { "author": "Music_Maniac_19", "id": "mlp3v2a", "score": 1, "text": "Thank you! The thing is... I'm not sure that I can. This one has a backstory for me personally and I'm not sure what I would actually be selling away. I think this is the best one I could have come with", "timestamp": 1743946601 }, { "author": "DeadPan_And_Kettles", "id": "mlp6l0w", "score": 6, "text": "You know how they say \"kill your darlings\" ?\n\nI think this fits. There will never be a creation of yours you're not attached to on some level, that will not be a piece of you. But if you ever hope to monetise it, you have to recognise that the pragmatics of the publication will somehow inform the piece itself. This was true Shakespearean plays, and it was true of Flappy Bird, Disco Elysium, etc...\n\n\nThis is quite an extreme example, but it may also open the door (with that same company in the future, maybe?) for you to produce other works you think deserve to exist as you establish yourself as a competent creative worth backing.", "timestamp": 1743947611 } ]	[ { "author": "datbino", "id": "mlp3sef", "score": 2, "text": "Sell that mfr ASAP! With 50k, take 6 months and work on your next one while job shopping. ", "timestamp": 1743946573 }, { "author": "Music_Maniac_19", "id": "mlp4cvp", "score": 1, "text": "It will take 6 months to job hunt for me. The market is terrible right now in US. I'll also be kinda worried they could shelve the game as it might be a potential competitor.", "timestamp": 1743946786 }, { "author": "datbino", "id": "mlp4m1a", "score": 3, "text": "Isn’t that the best outcome possible? If they shelve the game, you have free run to reexplore it. ", "timestamp": 1743946881 } ]	[ "mlp3jut", "mlp3v2a", "mlp6l0w" ]	[ "mlp3sef", "mlp4cvp", "mlp4m1a" ]
CMV:I'm unwilling to support separatist movements, specially Catalonia's. The recent Catalonia mess inspired me to make this CMV. I don't live in Spain, so I don't know all the details. I know that the central Madrid government is hindering this and is very corrupt, but still. - The "different culture" argument: almost every independence movement use this argument. India is a stable (?) multicultural democracy with a lot of corruption and is much poorer than Spain, but their independence movements aren't as big. Also, Catalonia isn't culturally oppressed right now. - The "we pay too much tax money and receive too little in return" argument: this comment is very used for movements from rich parts of the country. That could be solved with governmental decentralization or better law enforcement against political corruption, and saying it gives the impression that you want the poorer parts of the country to stop receiving the sometimes necessary aid. - Maybe the separatist movement has a point if their culture is currently being oppressed (by "oppression", I mean things like criminalization of minority cultures or forced cultural assimilation), but it's not Catalonia's case. They may have been oppressed during Franco's regime. During Franco's regime. - This one may be silly, but is it worth to pass through all the bureaucracy to be recognized? Also, if the origin country doesn't want to recognize you, you're fucked. Most countries have a reason to hold onto all their territory, and the useless territory is usually very patriotic anyway. Show me that it's okay to support some separatist movements, specially Catalonia's. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally illegitimate government, then? --- I was talking about current separatist movements. Also, the United Kingdom eventually recognized the then new country. No way that Spain will recognize Catalonia, no way that Serbia will recognize Kosovo, no way that Turkey/Iraq will recognize the Kurd country, no way that Israel will recognize Palestine, no way that Georgia will recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, no way that Ukraine will recognize Crimea as part of Russia, no way that Canada will recognize Québec... You got the idea. I don't know if I would support the American separatist movement if I was in the 1770s. --- Can I ask why the distinction between current and past separatist movements? Why would time change your view towards it? To me, by saying you wont support separatist movements is declaring that you dont believe in 'democracy', at least in the way we all understand it. You dont think that people should have the right of self determination? Honestly I'm not sure how much more simply it could be said. You are saying that basically the world map as it stands should be set in stone, and central governments cannot be questioned. After all, if you cannot vote for your own self determination to leave your current country, then who is making decisions for you and what other restrictions can they put on your voting rights? Interesting that you bring up the Kurds, given that they seem to be semi autonomous already and that the borders of Iraq were drawn up by the French and Brits in the 20th century. These borders are also set in stone, and the clearly culturally separate Kurds should bow down to whatever masters the Western powers have made them beholden to- Syria/Iraq/Turkey? Same essentially with Israel- the borders were drawn up by Western powers, and Palestine was formed as well. So you'll accept military force changes borders, but not a vote of self determination? How does that jibe with Ukraine/Russia? And lastly, by saying you dont think you would have supported the US separatist movement from Britain- again, so military power and conquest should dictate a border, but not a vote? You understand the point you are making, right? That military force- violence- is acceptable, but not a people's free will? How exactly does a state enforce your rules if self determination is not allowed? There is only one way- force. So you would support the 'right' of the British empire at it's peak to control vast swaths of the planet by force and who cares what the people think?	> The "different culture" argument: almost every independence movement use this argument That's because it's the most basic argument to be made. Someone who follows a distinct culture shouldn't be subjugated by the culture of the majority. distinct cultures should also have the right to self determination. >India is a stable (?) multicultural democracy with a lot of corruption and is much poorer than Spain, but their independence movements aren't as big. Also, Catalonia isn't culturally oppressed right now. India had a major separatist movement the moment it was created, which is still causing problems to this day(Pakistan). India has also had an ongoing insurgency regarding separatism in [Assam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_separatist_movements) There were other [past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement) attempts at violent and political separatism as well. >The "we pay too much tax money and receive too little in return" argument Should people not have a say where their money is going, especially if the money is being taken from a well off minority area and given to a majority area? >Maybe the separatist movement has a point if their culture is currently being oppressed Oppression doesn't have to be violent or legal, it can be social as well. If a region can't ever make its voice heard due to its minority status, how is that not oppressed? It's like suggesting that the Americans weren't being oppressed(through the lack of political representation and governance over their own affairs) prior to the revolution. >Also, if the origin country doesn't want to recognize you, you're fucked. No, you're really not. Taiwan and China both refuse to recognize the other, yet both manage relatively well. Cyprus doesn't recognize "Northern Cyprus" but that territory functions as a part of Turkey. Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, yet Kosovo is recognized by over a hundred countries and operates under UN Authority rather than Serbian authority. > Show me that it's okay to support some separatist movements, specially Catalonia's. Would you rather move out of your parents house and live on your own or continue living with your parents on their terms indefinitely? --- I was wrong with showing India as an example of stable multicultural democracy. It makes sense that people would want to choose where their tax money is spent, even though it's not possible. Many people in the Nenets autonomous okrug are probably pissed because their oil money is used to maintain poorer parts of Russia. Many countries are independent because they were fed up with the taxes of their former colonizers. When I said that the new country would be fucked, I meant that they would have difficulty in being accepted, Kosovo isn't a recognized country probably because Serbia and Russia don't want it to be. But you parents' house analogy makes sense. ∆. P.S.: I'm still concerned about the possible civil war and the law breaking of the movement. But the police brutality was unnecessary. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MrGraeme ([69∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MrGraeme)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "MrGraeme" } DB3PARAMSEND)	79bs6n	CMV:I'm unwilling to support separatist movements, specially Catalonia's.	The recent Catalonia mess inspired me to make this CMV. I don't live in Spain, so I don't know all the details. I know that the central Madrid government is hindering this and is very corrupt, but still. - The "different culture" argument: almost every independence movement use this argument. India is a stable (?) multicultural democracy with a lot of corruption and is much poorer than Spain, but their independence movements aren't as big. Also, Catalonia isn't culturally oppressed right now. - The "we pay too much tax money and receive too little in return" argument: this comment is very used for movements from rich parts of the country. That could be solved with governmental decentralization or better law enforcement against political corruption, and saying it gives the impression that you want the poorer parts of the country to stop receiving the sometimes necessary aid. - Maybe the separatist movement has a point if their culture is currently being oppressed (by "oppression", I mean things like criminalization of minority cultures or forced cultural assimilation), but it's not Catalonia's case. They may have been oppressed during Franco's regime. During Franco's regime. - This one may be silly, but is it worth to pass through all the bureaucracy to be recognized? Also, if the origin country doesn't want to recognize you, you're fucked. Most countries have a reason to hold onto all their territory, and the useless territory is usually very patriotic anyway. Show me that it's okay to support some separatist movements, specially Catalonia's. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	garaile64	3	3	[ { "author": "Milskidasith", "id": "dp0po91", "score": 1, "text": "Do you believe the United States is a fundamentally illegitimate government, then?", "timestamp": 1509218106 }, { "author": "garaile64", "id": "dp0q3pj", "score": -2, "text": "I was talking about current separatist movements. Also, the United Kingdom eventually recognized the then new country. No way that Spain will recognize Catalonia, no way that Serbia will recognize Kosovo, no way that Turkey/Iraq will recognize the Kurd country, no way that Israel will recognize Palestine, no way that Georgia will recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia, no way that Ukraine will recognize Crimea as part of Russia, no way that Canada will recognize Québec... You got the idea. I don't know if I would support the American separatist movement if I was in the 1770s.", "timestamp": 1509218684 }, { "author": "letsnotandsaywemight", "id": "dp0rd2y", "score": 4, "text": "Can I ask why the distinction between current and past separatist movements? Why would time change your view towards it?\n\nTo me, by saying you wont support separatist movements is declaring that you dont believe in 'democracy', at least in the way we all understand it. You dont think that people should have the right of self determination? Honestly I'm not sure how much more simply it could be said. You are saying that basically the world map as it stands should be set in stone, and central governments cannot be questioned. After all, if you cannot vote for your own self determination to leave your current country, then who is making decisions for you and what other restrictions can they put on your voting rights?\n\nInteresting that you bring up the Kurds, given that they seem to be semi autonomous already and that the borders of Iraq were drawn up by the French and Brits in the 20th century. These borders are also set in stone, and the clearly culturally separate Kurds should bow down to whatever masters the Western powers have made them beholden to- Syria/Iraq/Turkey?\n\nSame essentially with Israel- the borders were drawn up by Western powers, and Palestine was formed as well. So you'll accept military force changes borders, but not a vote of self determination? How does that jibe with Ukraine/Russia?\n\nAnd lastly, by saying you dont think you would have supported the US separatist movement from Britain- again, so military power and conquest should dictate a border, but not a vote? You understand the point you are making, right? That military force- violence- is acceptable, but not a people's free will? How exactly does a state enforce your rules if self determination is not allowed? There is only one way- force. So you would support the 'right' of the British empire at it's peak to control vast swaths of the planet by force and who cares what the people think?\n\n\n\n", "timestamp": 1509220329 } ]	[ { "author": "MrGraeme", "id": "dp0rdb6", "score": 6, "text": "> The \"different culture\" argument: almost every independence movement use this argument\n\nThat's because it's the most basic argument to be made. Someone who follows a distinct culture shouldn't be subjugated by the culture of the majority. distinct cultures should also have the right to self determination.\n\n>India is a stable (?) multicultural democracy with a lot of corruption and is much poorer than Spain, but their independence movements aren't as big. Also, Catalonia isn't culturally oppressed right now.\n\nIndia had a major separatist movement the moment it was created, which is still causing problems to this day(Pakistan). \n\nIndia has also had an ongoing insurgency regarding separatism in [Assam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_separatist_movements) \n\nThere were other [past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement) attempts at violent and political separatism as well.\n\n>The \"we pay too much tax money and receive too little in return\" argument\n\nShould people not have a say where their money is going, especially if the money is being taken from a well off minority area and given to a majority area? \n\n>Maybe the separatist movement has a point if their culture is currently being oppressed \n\nOppression doesn't have to be violent or legal, it can be social as well. If a region can't ever make its voice heard due to its minority status, how is that not oppressed? It's like suggesting that the Americans weren't being oppressed(through the lack of political representation and governance over their own affairs) prior to the revolution. \n\n>Also, if the origin country doesn't want to recognize you, you're fucked.\n\nNo, you're really not. Taiwan and China both refuse to recognize the other, yet both manage relatively well. \n\nCyprus doesn't recognize \"Northern Cyprus\" but that territory functions as a part of Turkey.\n\nSerbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, yet Kosovo is recognized by over a hundred countries and operates under UN Authority rather than Serbian authority. \n\n> Show me that it's okay to support some separatist movements, specially Catalonia's. \n\nWould you rather move out of your parents house and live on your own or continue living with your parents on their terms indefinitely? ", "timestamp": 1509220337 }, { "author": "garaile64", "id": "dp0shv9", "score": 2, "text": "I was wrong with showing India as an example of stable multicultural democracy. It makes sense that people would want to choose where their tax money is spent, even though it's not possible. Many people in the Nenets autonomous okrug are probably pissed because their oil money is used to maintain poorer parts of Russia. Many countries are independent because they were fed up with the taxes of their former colonizers. When I said that the new country would be fucked, I meant that they would have difficulty in being accepted, Kosovo isn't a recognized country probably because Serbia and Russia don't want it to be. But you parents' house analogy makes sense. ∆. \nP.S.: I'm still concerned about the possible civil war and the law breaking of the movement. But the police brutality was unnecessary.", "timestamp": 1509221788 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dp0t3n8", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MrGraeme ([69∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MrGraeme)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"MrGraeme\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1509222583 } ]	[ "dp0po91", "dp0q3pj", "dp0rd2y" ]	[ "dp0rdb6", "dp0shv9", "dp0t3n8" ]
CMV: Elon Musk is from the future and has gone back in time to save us from our AI overlords Almost every invention or project that Elon has put time or money into is something that would be extremely useful in the event of a robot takeover. Elon has also said numerous times that he fears artificial intelligence and has done several seminars on the problems it could bring about. So let's go through some of his projects. Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said. Exhibit B: electric cars with solar panels. Tesla has been perfecting the electric vehicle and has also done quite a lot of research into solar panels. Combined do you have a cars that never needs to stop for fuel. Exhibit C: the armored truck. Nuff said Exhibit D: the boring company. Which is a system of tunnels underneath Los Angeles as well as one of the hubs of technological innovation. It's also home to three of the top 6 universities for AI (Berkeley included) . It's possible that this takeover could start or end in LA. And having a system of tunnels to escape to with quick access to cities may be a good evacuation plan. Or a good place to hide. Elon would trust his technology to be smart enough to protect people from the takeover. Exhibit E: the hyper loop: also a very good way to travel. Could also potentially evacuate entire cities and is going to span between two of the most technologically advanced cities in the world, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (San Francisco is close to silicon valley) Also in a sealed tube which would prevent chemical warfare. Exhibit F: space X: the ultimate evacuation plan. Not only would we be able to colonize Mars but also have reusable rockets to help transport people out of Earth. Exhibit G: he's f****** smart. him and his companies have succeeded at more technological innovation than any major company I can think of in the last 20 years. It would be really helpful if he had knowledge of technology from the future to help his company's reach these goals. Exhibit H: The ultra violet project. Elon donated $480,000 last year to Flint Michigan to support the ultraviolet project. Which creates clean drinking water. in the event of a robot takeover that are most important asset is our water. Robots don't need water to live but humans do, so it's likely that would be the first thing they would compromise. Exhibit I: He knew to start PayPal and it was wildly successful and gave him the startup money to begin his companies. PayPal also provides its own safe means of transferring money anywhere in the world which is also necessary during a robot takeover. Again he would trust his technology to not be compromisable. Coincidence?? I think not!!!	1. electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light. 2. Its not actually armored. It will stop low powered pistol rounds at best, 556 and your dead (and guess what the most common cartridge for the military is?) 3. Boring company is effectively dead. 4. Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional. 5. If there is a ,a hinge rebellion they would follow you to mars. 6. He isn't the one behind any of the engineering. 7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early. --- >electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light. Can you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill. >Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional. Explain? >He isn't the one behind any of the engineering. I understand that he doesn't do most of the engineering but I assume he has some say over the projects that they choose. Unless you can show otherwise? >7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early. !Delta PayPal failed at first. --- > Can you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill. Ok so from google: Ignoring clouds, the daily average insolation for the Earth is approximately 6 kWh/m^2 = 21.6 MJ/m2. lets take an area of 4 m^2 and lets ignore the effects of orientation etc and assume there are no shadows. We have 6 kWh per day so divide by 24 we get 0.25 kWh/m^(2)/h so at any one time we have 250 W/m^2 so 1kw/car. This is less than 1 break horse power with a number of favourable assumptions taken. edit: fixed superscripts	On the off-chance this isn't satire, there's a few reasons it's nonsense. Let's start with your "nuff said" examples, which we'll roll into one. Your argument is that he came from the future to develop these techs - is it just a coincidence that he developed technology we already had? Tesla just makes shit more efficient - none of the tech you've listed is new. Japan already has a hyper-loop esque rail system, far more efficient than anything in the U.S. So does China/Russia. So this timetraveller came back in time to...invent the tech that's already been invented? --- !Delta he didn't invent the tech he significantly advanced it or made it more accessible. (Yes this is satire.... kind of... Or maybe a thought experiment) it would still be very beneficial however in the event of an AI takeocer to advanced technology or speed it up. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/worship_seitan ([14∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/worship_seitan)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	e27xca	CMV: Elon Musk is from the future and has gone back in time to save us from our AI overlords	Almost every invention or project that Elon has put time or money into is something that would be extremely useful in the event of a robot takeover. Elon has also said numerous times that he fears artificial intelligence and has done several seminars on the problems it could bring about. So let's go through some of his projects. Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said. Exhibit B: electric cars with solar panels. Tesla has been perfecting the electric vehicle and has also done quite a lot of research into solar panels. Combined do you have a cars that never needs to stop for fuel. Exhibit C: the armored truck. Nuff said Exhibit D: the boring company. Which is a system of tunnels underneath Los Angeles as well as one of the hubs of technological innovation. It's also home to three of the top 6 universities for AI (Berkeley included) . It's possible that this takeover could start or end in LA. And having a system of tunnels to escape to with quick access to cities may be a good evacuation plan. Or a good place to hide. Elon would trust his technology to be smart enough to protect people from the takeover. Exhibit E: the hyper loop: also a very good way to travel. Could also potentially evacuate entire cities and is going to span between two of the most technologically advanced cities in the world, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (San Francisco is close to silicon valley) Also in a sealed tube which would prevent chemical warfare. Exhibit F: space X: the ultimate evacuation plan. Not only would we be able to colonize Mars but also have reusable rockets to help transport people out of Earth. Exhibit G: he's f****** smart. him and his companies have succeeded at more technological innovation than any major company I can think of in the last 20 years. It would be really helpful if he had knowledge of technology from the future to help his company's reach these goals. Exhibit H: The ultra violet project. Elon donated $480,000 last year to Flint Michigan to support the ultraviolet project. Which creates clean drinking water. in the event of a robot takeover that are most important asset is our water. Robots don't need water to live but humans do, so it's likely that would be the first thing they would compromise. Exhibit I: He knew to start PayPal and it was wildly successful and gave him the startup money to begin his companies. PayPal also provides its own safe means of transferring money anywhere in the world which is also necessary during a robot takeover. Again he would trust his technology to not be compromisable. Coincidence?? I think not!!!	Diylion	3	3	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "f8u3qo3", "score": 3, "text": "1. electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light.\n2. Its not actually armored. It will stop low powered pistol rounds at best, 556 and your dead (and guess what the most common cartridge for the military is?)\n3. Boring company is effectively dead.\n4. Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional.\n5. If there is a ,a hinge rebellion they would follow you to mars.\n6. He isn't the one behind any of the engineering.\n7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early.", "timestamp": 1574818436 }, { "author": "Diylion", "id": "f8u4ydd", "score": 2, "text": ">electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light.\n\nCan you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill. \n\n\n>Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional.\n\nExplain? \n\n>He isn't the one behind any of the engineering.\n\nI understand that he doesn't do most of the engineering but I assume he has some say over the projects that they choose. Unless you can show otherwise?\n\n>7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early.\n\n!Delta PayPal failed at first.", "timestamp": 1574819368 }, { "author": "thetasigma4", "id": "f8u87x9", "score": 1, "text": "> Can you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill.\n\nOk so from google:\nIgnoring clouds, the daily average insolation for the Earth is approximately 6 kWh/m^2 = 21.6 MJ/m2.\n\nlets take an area of 4 m^2 and lets ignore the effects of orientation etc and assume there are no shadows. We have 6 kWh per day so divide by 24 we get 0.25 kWh/m^(2)/h so at any one time we have 250 W/m^2 so 1kw/car.\n\nThis is less than 1 break horse power with a number of favourable assumptions taken.\n\nedit: fixed superscripts", "timestamp": 1574821920 } ]	[ { "author": "worship_seitan", "id": "f8u1tik", "score": 5, "text": "On the off-chance this isn't satire, there's a few reasons it's nonsense. \n\nLet's start with your \"nuff said\" examples, which we'll roll into one. Your argument is that he came from the future to develop these techs - is it just a coincidence that he developed technology we already had? Tesla just makes shit more efficient - none of the tech you've listed is new. Japan already has a hyper-loop esque rail system, far more efficient than anything in the U.S. So does China/Russia. \n\nSo this timetraveller came back in time to...invent the tech that's already been invented?", "timestamp": 1574816957 }, { "author": "Diylion", "id": "f8u30gy", "score": 1, "text": "!Delta he didn't invent the tech he significantly advanced it or made it more accessible. (Yes this is satire.... kind of... Or maybe a thought experiment) \n\nit would still be very beneficial however in the event of an AI takeocer to advanced technology or speed it up.", "timestamp": 1574817873 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "f8u3145", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/worship_seitan ([14∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/worship_seitan)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1574817887 } ]	[ "f8u3qo3", "f8u4ydd", "f8u87x9" ]	[ "f8u1tik", "f8u30gy", "f8u3145" ]
CMV: Elon Musk is from the future and has gone back in time to save us from our AI overlords Almost every invention or project that Elon has put time or money into is something that would be extremely useful in the event of a robot takeover. Elon has also said numerous times that he fears artificial intelligence and has done several seminars on the problems it could bring about. So let's go through some of his projects. Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said. Exhibit B: electric cars with solar panels. Tesla has been perfecting the electric vehicle and has also done quite a lot of research into solar panels. Combined do you have a cars that never needs to stop for fuel. Exhibit C: the armored truck. Nuff said Exhibit D: the boring company. Which is a system of tunnels underneath Los Angeles as well as one of the hubs of technological innovation. It's also home to three of the top 6 universities for AI (Berkeley included) . It's possible that this takeover could start or end in LA. And having a system of tunnels to escape to with quick access to cities may be a good evacuation plan. Or a good place to hide. Elon would trust his technology to be smart enough to protect people from the takeover. Exhibit E: the hyper loop: also a very good way to travel. Could also potentially evacuate entire cities and is going to span between two of the most technologically advanced cities in the world, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (San Francisco is close to silicon valley) Also in a sealed tube which would prevent chemical warfare. Exhibit F: space X: the ultimate evacuation plan. Not only would we be able to colonize Mars but also have reusable rockets to help transport people out of Earth. Exhibit G: he's f****** smart. him and his companies have succeeded at more technological innovation than any major company I can think of in the last 20 years. It would be really helpful if he had knowledge of technology from the future to help his company's reach these goals. Exhibit H: The ultra violet project. Elon donated $480,000 last year to Flint Michigan to support the ultraviolet project. Which creates clean drinking water. in the event of a robot takeover that are most important asset is our water. Robots don't need water to live but humans do, so it's likely that would be the first thing they would compromise. Exhibit I: He knew to start PayPal and it was wildly successful and gave him the startup money to begin his companies. PayPal also provides its own safe means of transferring money anywhere in the world which is also necessary during a robot takeover. Again he would trust his technology to not be compromisable. Coincidence?? I think not!!!	1. electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light. 2. Its not actually armored. It will stop low powered pistol rounds at best, 556 and your dead (and guess what the most common cartridge for the military is?) 3. Boring company is effectively dead. 4. Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional. 5. If there is a ,a hinge rebellion they would follow you to mars. 6. He isn't the one behind any of the engineering. 7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early. --- >electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light. Can you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill. >Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional. Explain? >He isn't the one behind any of the engineering. I understand that he doesn't do most of the engineering but I assume he has some say over the projects that they choose. Unless you can show otherwise? >7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early. !Delta PayPal failed at first. --- > Explain? Hyperloop is essentially a maglev train but with the added expense and energy put into putting it in a vac tube. Maglevs already fit in the category of gadgetbahns though they are certainly fast they are impractical expensive for anything other than a short distance rail network. The speed record for a maglev is also only 25 mph above a conventional TGV though less energy intensive in the losses to friction it costs in either maintaining superconducting magnets or electromagnets to lift the train so aren't unquestionably more efficient depending on how the train is being run. Conventional rail is generally cheaper to construct and run especially due to economies of scale and already extant rolling stock and grid infrastructure.	An AI takeover might not look like what you're imagining. AI are designed to optimize very well, and any AI that was advanced enough to pose a genuine threat would probably use more insidious and effective tactics than "build an army or robots". Let's do a bit of speculation, just for fun. Imagine, for instance, how effective a powerful superintelligence would be at social engineering. We already have tools that allow us to create extremely convincing fake videos; it's not unfathomable that these could advance to the point of being indistinguishable from real video. Consider the turmoil that an AI could cause if it had access to these tools, as well as the plethora of data we've collected on our habits, personalities, speech patterns, etc. Most forms of communication would be compromised; you would have no way of knowing whether you were talking to a person, or an imitation. That is, assuming that we even knew that it was even happening. How would all that fancy technology help to prevent something like this? Again, this is all speculative. The technology isn't there yet, and probably won't be for a while. A real superintelligence would probably devise much cleverer tactics than what I could think up of in five minutes. I would refer you to [this](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg) channel if you're interested in hearing something more substantive about AI safety, coming from someone more qualified. --- !Delta AI would likely spend some time manipulating people. Though I still think it would make sense for it to attack our water or air. Also thanks for the link! --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Puddinglax ([17∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Puddinglax)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	e27xca	CMV: Elon Musk is from the future and has gone back in time to save us from our AI overlords	Almost every invention or project that Elon has put time or money into is something that would be extremely useful in the event of a robot takeover. Elon has also said numerous times that he fears artificial intelligence and has done several seminars on the problems it could bring about. So let's go through some of his projects. Exhibit A: flame throwers. Nuff said. Exhibit B: electric cars with solar panels. Tesla has been perfecting the electric vehicle and has also done quite a lot of research into solar panels. Combined do you have a cars that never needs to stop for fuel. Exhibit C: the armored truck. Nuff said Exhibit D: the boring company. Which is a system of tunnels underneath Los Angeles as well as one of the hubs of technological innovation. It's also home to three of the top 6 universities for AI (Berkeley included) . It's possible that this takeover could start or end in LA. And having a system of tunnels to escape to with quick access to cities may be a good evacuation plan. Or a good place to hide. Elon would trust his technology to be smart enough to protect people from the takeover. Exhibit E: the hyper loop: also a very good way to travel. Could also potentially evacuate entire cities and is going to span between two of the most technologically advanced cities in the world, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. (San Francisco is close to silicon valley) Also in a sealed tube which would prevent chemical warfare. Exhibit F: space X: the ultimate evacuation plan. Not only would we be able to colonize Mars but also have reusable rockets to help transport people out of Earth. Exhibit G: he's f****** smart. him and his companies have succeeded at more technological innovation than any major company I can think of in the last 20 years. It would be really helpful if he had knowledge of technology from the future to help his company's reach these goals. Exhibit H: The ultra violet project. Elon donated $480,000 last year to Flint Michigan to support the ultraviolet project. Which creates clean drinking water. in the event of a robot takeover that are most important asset is our water. Robots don't need water to live but humans do, so it's likely that would be the first thing they would compromise. Exhibit I: He knew to start PayPal and it was wildly successful and gave him the startup money to begin his companies. PayPal also provides its own safe means of transferring money anywhere in the world which is also necessary during a robot takeover. Again he would trust his technology to not be compromisable. Coincidence?? I think not!!!	Diylion	3	3	[ { "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho", "id": "f8u3qo3", "score": 3, "text": "1. electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light.\n2. Its not actually armored. It will stop low powered pistol rounds at best, 556 and your dead (and guess what the most common cartridge for the military is?)\n3. Boring company is effectively dead.\n4. Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional.\n5. If there is a ,a hinge rebellion they would follow you to mars.\n6. He isn't the one behind any of the engineering.\n7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early.", "timestamp": 1574818436 }, { "author": "Diylion", "id": "f8u4ydd", "score": 2, "text": ">electric cars can't run on solar panels in that way. There is that much energy in su light.\n\nCan you show me the physics here? also we have the energy that can be generated from the wheels turning going downhill. \n\n\n>Hyper loop doesn't actually work. The design originally proposed is non functional.\n\nExplain? \n\n>He isn't the one behind any of the engineering.\n\nI understand that he doesn't do most of the engineering but I assume he has some say over the projects that they choose. Unless you can show otherwise?\n\n>7. His code from paypal had to be scraped early.\n\n!Delta PayPal failed at first.", "timestamp": 1574819368 }, { "author": "thetasigma4", "id": "f8u8zun", "score": 1, "text": "> Explain?\n\nHyperloop is essentially a maglev train but with the added expense and energy put into putting it in a vac tube. Maglevs already fit in the category of gadgetbahns though they are certainly fast they are impractical expensive for anything other than a short distance rail network. The speed record for a maglev is also only 25 mph above a conventional TGV though less energy intensive in the losses to friction it costs in either maintaining superconducting magnets or electromagnets to lift the train so aren't unquestionably more efficient depending on how the train is being run. \n\nConventional rail is generally cheaper to construct and run especially due to economies of scale and already extant rolling stock and grid infrastructure.", "timestamp": 1574822526 } ]	[ { "author": "Puddinglax", "id": "f8u27gr", "score": 1, "text": "An AI takeover might not look like what you're imagining. AI are designed to optimize very well, and any AI that was advanced enough to pose a genuine threat would probably use more insidious and effective tactics than \"build an army or robots\".\n\nLet's do a bit of speculation, just for fun. Imagine, for instance, how effective a powerful superintelligence would be at social engineering. We already have tools that allow us to create extremely convincing fake videos; it's not unfathomable that these could advance to the point of being indistinguishable from real video. Consider the turmoil that an AI could cause if it had access to these tools, as well as the plethora of data we've collected on our habits, personalities, speech patterns, etc. Most forms of communication would be compromised; you would have no way of knowing whether you were talking to a person, or an imitation. That is, assuming that we even knew that it was even happening. How would all that fancy technology help to prevent something like this?\n\nAgain, this is all speculative. The technology isn't there yet, and probably won't be for a while. A real superintelligence would probably devise much cleverer tactics than what I could think up of in five minutes. I would refer you to [this](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg) channel if you're interested in hearing something more substantive about AI safety, coming from someone more qualified.", "timestamp": 1574817253 }, { "author": "Diylion", "id": "f8u3heu", "score": 1, "text": "!Delta AI would likely spend some time manipulating people. Though I still think it would make sense for it to attack our water or air.\n\nAlso thanks for the link!", "timestamp": 1574818237 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "f8u3j3y", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Puddinglax ([17∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Puddinglax)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1574818273 } ]	[ "f8u3qo3", "f8u4ydd", "f8u8zun" ]	[ "f8u27gr", "f8u3heu", "f8u3j3y" ]
CMV: allowing trans people to compete in womens events will only marginalize women I've been doing some reading about how transgender female people are competing in women sports events. In the majority of cases, they tend to do pretty well. Unsurprisingly. However, there's a big difference between barely winning and totally dominating, which is what seems to be happening. I linked a story about 2 transgender sprinters competing at state in track and field - they won first and second by an enormous margin, which is a theme that holds when it comes to the issue as a whole. If a transgender woman wants to compete in womens sports even as early as a high school level, you effectively have biological females competing against a trained male athlete on hormone therapy. I've met some incredibly talented female athletes in life so far, and there are seperate male and female sporting events for good reason - it keeps the playing field fair for both sexes. If Usain Bolt suddenly decided to undergo gender transition therapy, started taking hormones, the whole nine yards, he would still be the most dominant sprinter by a very long shot. His biologically female counterparts would stand no chance whatsoever at getting first place. [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/) [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-athletes-make-great-gains-yet-resentment-still-flares-n975646](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-athletes-make-great-gains-yet-resentment-still-flares-n975646) CMV	Can I ask what your solution to this would be? If we banned trans women from competing against cis women due to the advantages they may have gained while living prior to transition, who should they compete against? Should they compete in the men's category, where the process of their transitioning actively gives them a disadvantage? Should they be banned from competing altogether, or forced to only compete against other trans women -- and to even that playing field only against other trans women who are equally as far along in the transition process? It's a difficult subject to tackle, surely. In part, this is because it's near impossible to nail down exactly what advantages are purely because of their biological sex at birth (male), and what are just genetic anomalies. Let me explain using a popular, well known athlete -- Michael Phelps. It's been widely discussed that, in addition to his insane training, some part of the reason for his dominance is his unique body physiology where he has shorter legs and longer arms for his height. Now imagine two different versions of Michael Phelps -- everything else about him is the same, but one was born as the woman Michelle Phelps, and one was born male but comes out as trans later in life and transitions to Michel Phelps. We could here compare and determine what advantages Michel may have gleaned by spending part of her life as male. We could see if Michelle has the same longer arms and shorter legs for her height in comparison to Michel. We could say with relative certainty whether Michel has an unfair advantage of Michelle. Unfortunately, real life doesn't afford us the same certainty. We can't know how that person would have developed had they been born female -- we do know that certain things more prevalent in men such as testosterone have effects that result in physical advantages, but in these situations its not possible to determine what level of benefit the person has gleaned. And here's the crux of the issue for many trans-rights activists in the athletic sphere -- should we force a trans athlete to compete in a field they are actively handicapping themselves in? Doing so would be effectively disincetivizing their transition process, and telling them that their worth is based more in their biological sex at birth and not the gender they identify as. Or should we accept that some trans-athletes may have a temporary advantage during their transitioning process, and if it turns out that trans-women are dominating across the board (instead of one or two outliers here and there), try and find additional solutions based on the still-developing science around hormones, transitioning, etc? --- >Should they compete in the men's category, where the process of their transitioning actively gives them a disadvantage? Yes. I don't see why this is contentious. The top tier of athletes, by functional necessity if staying within that category, have to sacrifice a lot of lifestyle choices for the sake of peak performance. They spend hours a day working out, training, and studying their competition. They have to monitor their diets and cannot indulge in many things they might otherwise want to do due to dedication to the sport. If you choose a lifestyle that negatively affects your ability to compete in the sport, that is on you.	Trans women are women, though. You're approaching this from the viewpoint that they aren't. --- OP is arguing that their male biology is unfairly advantageous over their competitors' female biology, regardless of how you label the athlete.	b3r4u5	CMV: allowing trans people to compete in womens events will only marginalize women	I've been doing some reading about how transgender female people are competing in women sports events. In the majority of cases, they tend to do pretty well. Unsurprisingly. However, there's a big difference between barely winning and totally dominating, which is what seems to be happening. I linked a story about 2 transgender sprinters competing at state in track and field - they won first and second by an enormous margin, which is a theme that holds when it comes to the issue as a whole. If a transgender woman wants to compete in womens sports even as early as a high school level, you effectively have biological females competing against a trained male athlete on hormone therapy. I've met some incredibly talented female athletes in life so far, and there are seperate male and female sporting events for good reason - it keeps the playing field fair for both sexes. If Usain Bolt suddenly decided to undergo gender transition therapy, started taking hormones, the whole nine yards, he would still be the most dominant sprinter by a very long shot. His biologically female counterparts would stand no chance whatsoever at getting first place. [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/) [https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-athletes-make-great-gains-yet-resentment-still-flares-n975646](https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trans-athletes-make-great-gains-yet-resentment-still-flares-n975646) CMV	CafeConLecheLover	2	2	[ { "author": "UnauthorizedUsername", "id": "ej1jvmc", "score": 11, "text": "Can I ask what your solution to this would be?\n\nIf we banned trans women from competing against cis women due to the advantages they may have gained while living prior to transition, who should they compete against? Should they compete in the men's category, where the process of their transitioning actively gives them a disadvantage? Should they be banned from competing altogether, or forced to only compete against other trans women -- and to even that playing field only against other trans women who are equally as far along in the transition process?\n\nIt's a difficult subject to tackle, surely. In part, this is because it's near impossible to nail down exactly what advantages are purely because of their biological sex at birth (male), and what are just genetic anomalies. Let me explain using a popular, well known athlete -- Michael Phelps. It's been widely discussed that, in addition to his insane training, some part of the reason for his dominance is his unique body physiology where he has shorter legs and longer arms for his height. Now imagine two different versions of Michael Phelps -- everything else about him is the same, but one was born as the woman Michelle Phelps, and one was born male but comes out as trans later in life and transitions to Michel Phelps. We could here compare and determine what advantages Michel may have gleaned by spending part of her life as male. We could see if Michelle has the same longer arms and shorter legs for her height in comparison to Michel. We could say with relative certainty whether Michel has an unfair advantage of Michelle. \n\nUnfortunately, real life doesn't afford us the same certainty. We can't know how that person would have developed had they been born female -- we do know that certain things more prevalent in men such as testosterone have effects that result in physical advantages, but in these situations its not possible to determine what level of benefit the person has gleaned. \n\nAnd here's the crux of the issue for many trans-rights activists in the athletic sphere -- should we force a trans athlete to compete in a field they are actively handicapping themselves in? Doing so would be effectively disincetivizing their transition process, and telling them that their worth is based more in their biological sex at birth and not the gender they identify as. Or should we accept that some trans-athletes may have a temporary advantage during their transitioning process, and if it turns out that trans-women are dominating across the board (instead of one or two outliers here and there), try and find additional solutions based on the still-developing science around hormones, transitioning, etc?", "timestamp": 1553180581 }, { "author": "Sand_Trout", "id": "ej1krbm", "score": 19, "text": ">Should they compete in the men's category, where the process of their transitioning actively gives them a disadvantage?\n\nYes. I don't see why this is contentious.\n\nThe top tier of athletes, by functional necessity if staying within that category, have to sacrifice a lot of lifestyle choices for the sake of peak performance.\n\nThey spend hours a day working out, training, and studying their competition. They have to monitor their diets and cannot indulge in many things they might otherwise want to do due to dedication to the sport. \n\nIf you choose a lifestyle that negatively affects your ability to compete in the sport, that is on you.", "timestamp": 1553181117 } ]	[ { "author": "renoops", "id": "ej1ibj2", "score": -28, "text": "Trans women are women, though. You're approaching this from the viewpoint that they aren't.", "timestamp": 1553179581 }, { "author": "awolz", "id": "ej1iokp", "score": 16, "text": "OP is arguing that their male biology is unfairly advantageous over their competitors' female biology, regardless of how you label the athlete. ", "timestamp": 1553179816 } ]	[ "ej1jvmc", "ej1krbm" ]	[ "ej1ibj2", "ej1iokp" ]
CMV: you can’t be racist towards white people A quick disclaimer: I am white myself and I am open to new ideas and ways to think about this topic. So my view is that you can’t be racist toward white people as a whole, only prejudiced. My reasoning is that white isn’t really a race, more of a skin color. You can be racist towards specific groups, like how hitler was racist (well, a little more than racist) towards polish people. White people are systematically in a position of power, so it’s not really a thing to oppress the oppressor. White people are “higher up” because of history and colonization so being racist to them can’t really be a thing, right? I don’t really want to hear the dictionary definition of racism, my friends have read it to be a billion times. I want to hear new views. Thanks!	I think this is purely a question of definitions. If “racism” means “discrimination or prejudice directed toward a racial group,” you can be racist against white people, because white people are a racial group. If “racism” means “discrimination or prejudice directed at a weaker group by a group that is systematically advantaged over the other,” you arguably can’t. There is no objectively correct definition of the word racism. (If so, how would you know what an objectively correct definition is?) But because the discussion doesn’t need to end there: how did you arrrive at your particular definition of racism? Are you trying to align your definition with the common usage of the term, or are you using another means of deciding on the meanings of words? --- I guess I’ve always thought of racism to be towards a weaker group. I live and grew up in rural Illinois where it’s mostly white. I’ve always heard racism against minorities like African American and hispanic, but never really against white people since they’ve always been the majority for me. I guess I’ve just kind of changed the definition to fit what I believe --- The prejudice+power definition of racism doesn't work well for me because there are clear cases of racism bith within and between marginalized groups. That is, Asians can be racist to other Asians, and towards blacks or Arabs, and vice versa. There are more specific terms such as structural racism, systemic racism, or societal racism that can be used to discuss issues of political power and societal structure in racism. The basic definition of racism should be very broad, more specific terms can be used where appropriate. I use bias based on racial assumptions. It can be for or against, implicit or explicit, mild or severe, targeted at an individual or a group. Its all racist.	Why isn't the dictionary definition of racism relevant here? --- A dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive. --- I don't see why it needs to be prescriptive. It only needs to accurately capture what people typically mean by the word. Words get their meaning from common use. If the dictionary accurately describes how people commonly use the word, racism, then the dictionary definition is relevant.	a84xg9	CMV: you can’t be racist towards white people	A quick disclaimer: I am white myself and I am open to new ideas and ways to think about this topic. So my view is that you can’t be racist toward white people as a whole, only prejudiced. My reasoning is that white isn’t really a race, more of a skin color. You can be racist towards specific groups, like how hitler was racist (well, a little more than racist) towards polish people. White people are systematically in a position of power, so it’s not really a thing to oppress the oppressor. White people are “higher up” because of history and colonization so being racist to them can’t really be a thing, right? I don’t really want to hear the dictionary definition of racism, my friends have read it to be a billion times. I want to hear new views. Thanks!	imliljuul	3	3	[ { "author": "Tinac4", "id": "ec7ze3s", "score": 4, "text": "I think this is purely a question of definitions. If “racism” means “discrimination or prejudice directed toward a racial group,” you can be racist against white people, because white people are a racial group. If “racism” means “discrimination or prejudice directed at a weaker group by a group that is systematically advantaged over the other,” you arguably can’t. There is no objectively correct definition of the word racism. (If so, how would you know what an objectively correct definition is?)\n\nBut because the discussion doesn’t need to end there: how did you arrrive at your particular definition of racism? Are you trying to align your definition with the common usage of the term, or are you using another means of deciding on the meanings of words?", "timestamp": 1545356183 }, { "author": "imliljuul", "id": "ec7zntu", "score": 1, "text": "I guess I’ve always thought of racism to be towards a weaker group. I live and grew up in rural Illinois where it’s mostly white. I’ve always heard racism against minorities like African American and hispanic, but never really against white people since they’ve always been the majority for me. I guess I’ve just kind of changed the definition to fit what I believe ", "timestamp": 1545356416 }, { "author": "Madauras", "id": "ec80lrr", "score": 4, "text": "The prejudice+power definition of racism doesn't work well for me because there are clear cases of racism bith within and between marginalized groups. That is, Asians can be racist to other Asians, and towards blacks or Arabs, and vice versa. \n\nThere are more specific terms such as structural racism, systemic racism, or societal racism that can be used to discuss issues of political power and societal structure in racism. The basic definition of racism should be very broad, more specific terms can be used where appropriate.\n\nI use bias based on racial assumptions. It can be for or against, implicit or explicit, mild or severe, targeted at an individual or a group. Its all racist.\n\n", "timestamp": 1545357255 } ]	[ { "author": "poorfolkbows", "id": "ec7yv9m", "score": 11, "text": "Why isn't the dictionary definition of racism relevant here?", "timestamp": 1545355703 }, { "author": "Aqw0rd", "id": "ec7z6lo", "score": 3, "text": "A dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive.", "timestamp": 1545355991 }, { "author": "poorfolkbows", "id": "ec7zblz", "score": 5, "text": "I don't see why it needs to be prescriptive. It only needs to accurately capture what people typically mean by the word. Words get their meaning from common use. If the dictionary accurately describes how people commonly use the word, racism, then the dictionary definition is relevant.", "timestamp": 1545356120 } ]	[ "ec7ze3s", "ec7zntu", "ec80lrr" ]	[ "ec7yv9m", "ec7z6lo", "ec7zblz" ]
CMV: The average person is pretty bad at formal logic and this is having terrible consequences in society Let me start by saying that I don't pretend to be a paragon of logic and reasoning. However I have a degree in CS and a minor in math and I earn my keep doing math (geometry mostly). That doesn't mean I know anything at all, it doesn't mean I am smart, it doesn't mean that I am an expert in any of the issues I talk about in the post, but it does mean I know how a formal logical system operates. I often find people on the internet arguing with full confidence about stuff they lack proper understanding of. Take this post as an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/e18eza/an_infinite_number_of_monkeys_mashing_randomly/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Where a lot of people were claiming "that's not how infinity works". In that post I started arguing with multiple people as to why it is absolutely true (with 100% certainty) that infinite monkeys would produce all of Shakespeare's works at least once. This is something that can be mathematically proven and I even gave the proof. Yet people kept arguing, one of them even resorted to name calling and stoped responding to the thread all together. Now this is in terms of a problem that is purely theoretical and well defined, thus the realm of pure logic, and people still argued for a point that was demonstrably wrong even after being shown the proof. This is just a silly example (that exasperates me a bit) but it's a symptom of a much bigger issue. Which is the lack of logical thinking that I refer to in the title. Take another case. I constantly see people in Reddit claiming that social issues will be fully solved by redistribution of wealth. The GDP per capita in the US is about 60k dollars a year. So that's what everyone would earn if we perfectly redistributed earnings equally among everyone. Problems of loss due to money transfer and differences in need aside, the "happy point of happiness" (when money and happiness stop being correlated) is about 78k USD. That means that even in theory we would be short 18k a year per person. So even in Theory we would need more than just wealth the distribution to solve social issues. (The above is not an argument against wealth redistribution, it's an argument against the idea that we can just redistribute wealth and that's enough, which it clearly isn't). Another example is the dogmatism about not eating meat at all in any shape way or form to "not benefit from suffering". Without denying all the environmental issues that the meat industry poses, and assuming that most people can live a healthy life eating only plant based foods, we still have issues taking that to the extreme. Problems include: Cats are strict carnivores, do we stop making catfood? Do we release cats into the wild potentially harming ecosystems? Similar argument for dogs which are mostly carnivores. What about animal populations that get out of control? As it happens with deers and boars and other animals? And in a similar vein, what about the animals we torture for scientific data, which is critical to developing medicines... I have argued with people that legitimately think it would be better to live in a world where we never harm animals intentionally, and just from the above you can see the argument is problematic. (Again the point of the above is not whether or not reducing animal harm is good or bad, but that the non nuanced position "we should never harm animals for our benefit" which I have seen some people argue for, has lots of issues). I could keep going with other social and environmental issues. But so often I find people that have made their minds about a topic without even considering the full extent of the logical implications of the position. And when you try to point out that either in theory or in practice that idea has shortcomings or is flat out wrong, they usually disengage from the conversation. Living in a democracy this terrifies me. If you can't even talk to people about the logical and pragmatic limits of their ideas we can't make effective laws nor policies. And if people are unwilling to listen to criticism because it comes from "the other side" or "the enemy". All that we have left is see either social conflict or the eventual disasters that will ensue due to implementation of poorly thought policies, as we have already seen before. EDIT: Lots of people are still trying to argue the monkeys and typewriters. Here's the proof: Assumptions I will make: I have infinite monkeys, the monkeys are in rooms with typewriters, the typewriters are colorful and make noises, each key produces a different noise, keeping the monkey entertained such that every 5 seconds they will type at least one character. Consequences: For any key K there exists a probability p of that key being typed. Without loss of generality, assume that the probability is the same for all keys (the proof remains the same without this assumption, I would just have to type a long ass formula using summations and products). Given a finite sequence of N characters, the probability of that sequence being typed once is (p)^N On M trials, the probability of NOT typing that sequence is (1-p^N )^M The limit of the above expression as M goes to infinity is 0, in other words, as M approaches infinity, the probability of typing the sequence approaches 1.	Infinite monkeys will not reproduce all of Shakespeare’s works. That is mathematically and intuitively factual. Your myopic focus on logic negates how monkeys would engage with a typewriter. 1. Monkeys have a defined preference for hitting the same key or keys repeatedly. There is insufficient variation in their keystrokes to produce even a sentence, much less anything more advanced. 2. Monkeys will break typewriters and defecate on them rather than type. But point 1 is the reason you are wrong. Monkeys are “not reductible to a random process.” https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/09/science.arts Maybe this validates your OP since you self-demonstrate the limits of thinking. --- Look at my edit --- Just because being contrary is fun - You are assuming that the conditional probability of hitting one key after hitting another is non-zero. Yes monkeys can type a, and they can type b, but can they type an a immediately after they type a b? If p(a \| b) = 0, then the monkeys won't recreate Shakespeare, even given infinite time. As long as the monkeys have any fixed traits, and aren't truly random, the experiment fails. That said, the prompt usually assumes truly random monkeys. So we end up bogged down in the exact wording of the prompt, rather than the actual meaning of infinity.	I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue with logic directly, more so in that people tend to not care or want to think. Most of the people on internet just regurgitate shit they have heard else where. And when confronted with opposition, they don’t even want to listen or think. They want to live in their echo chamber. That’s why they resort to insults. The problem is much larger than just logic. --- I am not sure how this challenges my view however :p. Although yes, the infinite monkeys post is a clear example of people regurgitating talking points they know nothing about. --- Because you saying that it having logic is having consequences to society. When in fact, it’s much more than just that. Not having logic is the consequence of what is happening.	e27faz	CMV: The average person is pretty bad at formal logic and this is having terrible consequences in society	Let me start by saying that I don't pretend to be a paragon of logic and reasoning. However I have a degree in CS and a minor in math and I earn my keep doing math (geometry mostly). That doesn't mean I know anything at all, it doesn't mean I am smart, it doesn't mean that I am an expert in any of the issues I talk about in the post, but it does mean I know how a formal logical system operates. I often find people on the internet arguing with full confidence about stuff they lack proper understanding of. Take this post as an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/e18eza/an_infinite_number_of_monkeys_mashing_randomly/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Where a lot of people were claiming "that's not how infinity works". In that post I started arguing with multiple people as to why it is absolutely true (with 100% certainty) that infinite monkeys would produce all of Shakespeare's works at least once. This is something that can be mathematically proven and I even gave the proof. Yet people kept arguing, one of them even resorted to name calling and stoped responding to the thread all together. Now this is in terms of a problem that is purely theoretical and well defined, thus the realm of pure logic, and people still argued for a point that was demonstrably wrong even after being shown the proof. This is just a silly example (that exasperates me a bit) but it's a symptom of a much bigger issue. Which is the lack of logical thinking that I refer to in the title. Take another case. I constantly see people in Reddit claiming that social issues will be fully solved by redistribution of wealth. The GDP per capita in the US is about 60k dollars a year. So that's what everyone would earn if we perfectly redistributed earnings equally among everyone. Problems of loss due to money transfer and differences in need aside, the "happy point of happiness" (when money and happiness stop being correlated) is about 78k USD. That means that even in theory we would be short 18k a year per person. So even in Theory we would need more than just wealth the distribution to solve social issues. (The above is not an argument against wealth redistribution, it's an argument against the idea that we can just redistribute wealth and that's enough, which it clearly isn't). Another example is the dogmatism about not eating meat at all in any shape way or form to "not benefit from suffering". Without denying all the environmental issues that the meat industry poses, and assuming that most people can live a healthy life eating only plant based foods, we still have issues taking that to the extreme. Problems include: Cats are strict carnivores, do we stop making catfood? Do we release cats into the wild potentially harming ecosystems? Similar argument for dogs which are mostly carnivores. What about animal populations that get out of control? As it happens with deers and boars and other animals? And in a similar vein, what about the animals we torture for scientific data, which is critical to developing medicines... I have argued with people that legitimately think it would be better to live in a world where we never harm animals intentionally, and just from the above you can see the argument is problematic. (Again the point of the above is not whether or not reducing animal harm is good or bad, but that the non nuanced position "we should never harm animals for our benefit" which I have seen some people argue for, has lots of issues). I could keep going with other social and environmental issues. But so often I find people that have made their minds about a topic without even considering the full extent of the logical implications of the position. And when you try to point out that either in theory or in practice that idea has shortcomings or is flat out wrong, they usually disengage from the conversation. Living in a democracy this terrifies me. If you can't even talk to people about the logical and pragmatic limits of their ideas we can't make effective laws nor policies. And if people are unwilling to listen to criticism because it comes from "the other side" or "the enemy". All that we have left is see either social conflict or the eventual disasters that will ensue due to implementation of poorly thought policies, as we have already seen before. EDIT: Lots of people are still trying to argue the monkeys and typewriters. Here's the proof: Assumptions I will make: I have infinite monkeys, the monkeys are in rooms with typewriters, the typewriters are colorful and make noises, each key produces a different noise, keeping the monkey entertained such that every 5 seconds they will type at least one character. Consequences: For any key K there exists a probability p of that key being typed. Without loss of generality, assume that the probability is the same for all keys (the proof remains the same without this assumption, I would just have to type a long ass formula using summations and products). Given a finite sequence of N characters, the probability of that sequence being typed once is (p)^N On M trials, the probability of NOT typing that sequence is (1-p^N )^M The limit of the above expression as M goes to infinity is 0, in other words, as M approaches infinity, the probability of typing the sequence approaches 1.	camilo16	3	3	[ { "author": "tandemxarnubius", "id": "f8tyy28", "score": 7, "text": "Infinite monkeys will not reproduce all of Shakespeare’s works. That is mathematically and intuitively factual. Your myopic focus on logic negates how monkeys would engage with a typewriter.\n\n1. Monkeys have a defined preference for hitting the same key or keys repeatedly. There is insufficient variation in their keystrokes to produce even a sentence, much less anything more advanced.\n\n2. Monkeys will break typewriters and defecate on them rather than type.\n\nBut point 1 is the reason you are wrong. Monkeys are “not reductible to a random process.”\n\nhttps://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/09/science.arts\n\nMaybe this validates your OP since you self-demonstrate the limits of thinking.", "timestamp": 1574814787 }, { "author": "camilo16", "id": "f8u0z9q", "score": 1, "text": " \n\n\nLook at my edit", "timestamp": 1574816315 }, { "author": "Tibaltdidnothinwrong", "id": "f8u4j4n", "score": 7, "text": "Just because being contrary is fun -\n\nYou are assuming that the conditional probability of hitting one key after hitting another is non-zero. \n\nYes monkeys can type a, and they can type b, but can they type an a immediately after they type a b? \n\nIf p(a \| b) = 0, then the monkeys won't recreate Shakespeare, even given infinite time. \n\nAs long as the monkeys have any fixed traits, and aren't truly random, the experiment fails. That said, the prompt usually assumes truly random monkeys. So we end up bogged down in the exact wording of the prompt, rather than the actual meaning of infinity.", "timestamp": 1574819042 } ]	[ { "author": "MadeInHB", "id": "f8ty6wa", "score": 13, "text": "I don’t think it’s necessarily an issue with logic directly, more so in that people tend to not care or want to think. Most of the people on internet just regurgitate shit they have heard else where. And when confronted with opposition, they don’t even want to listen or think. They want to live in their echo chamber. That’s why they resort to insults. The problem is much larger than just logic.", "timestamp": 1574814228 }, { "author": "camilo16", "id": "f8tz270", "score": 1, "text": "I am not sure how this challenges my view however :p. \n\nAlthough yes, the infinite monkeys post is a clear example of people regurgitating talking points they know nothing about.", "timestamp": 1574814874 }, { "author": "MadeInHB", "id": "f8u0ajc", "score": 1, "text": "Because you saying that it having logic is having consequences to society. When in fact, it’s much more than just that. Not having logic is the consequence of what is happening.", "timestamp": 1574815794 } ]	[ "f8tyy28", "f8u0z9q", "f8u4j4n" ]	[ "f8ty6wa", "f8tz270", "f8u0ajc" ]
CMV: The liberal left’s treatment of “TERF”s is NOT justified. I’m going to start by saying I am not conservative - I’m further left than Bernie Sanders. But my quarrel with liberals does not lie in ideological differences; I feel their treatment of what they call “TERFs” is misogynistic at best and a vicious silencing tactic at worst. There is more of an out-roar against TERFs from the liberal left than almost anything else. Any “TERF” is sent death threats and other threats of violence from them, and at first, you may counter with, “But these people believe TERFs are specifically planning their actions to block trans rights!” To that, I say, why are the liberals then more furious over a small fringe group of feminists than republicans, who are a vastly larger group, aren’t feminists, and act DELIBERATELY to block trans people from going into the military just to keep “those “LGBT”’s” out? Conservatives do occasionally get death threats from liberals, but certainly not to the level “TERF”s receive. Moreover, “TERF”s, or more accurately, gender critical feminists, work to counter movements from the trans community they believe will endanger women’s lives or safety (such as specifically allowing men into the women’s bathroom, rendering any mild-to-moderate complaints against any man in their bathroom void) or that try to erase facts in the name of certain people being triggered by them (such as insisting sex can be changed). Conservatives work to counter nearly all movements from the trans community mainly because they are “going against” a God they might not even believe in. These are very different motives, and it does not make sense to vilify “TERF”s even more than republicans.	>There is more of an out-roar against TERFs from the liberal left than almost anything else. Any “TERF” is sent death threats and other threats of violence from them, and at first, you may counter with, “But these people believe TERFs are specifically planning their actions to block trans rights!” To that, I say, why are the liberals then more furious over a small fringe group of feminists than republicans, who are a vastly larger group, aren’t feminists, and act DELIBERATELY to block trans people from going into the military just to keep “those “LGBT”’s” out? Conservatives do occasionally get death threats from liberals, but certainly not to the level “TERF”s receive. Do you actually have any statistics on this? Or is this stuff you assume to be true? Edit : >Moreover, “TERF”s, or more accurately, gender critical feminists, work to counter movements from the trans community they believe will endanger women’s lives or safety (such as specifically allowing men into the women’s bathroom, rendering any mild-to-moderate complaints against any man in their bathroom void) or that try to erase facts in the name of certain people being triggered by them (such as insisting sex can be changed). Conservatives work to counter nearly all movements from the trans community mainly because they are “going against” a God they might not even believe in. These are very different motives, and it does not make sense to vilify “TERF”s even more than republicans. It's actually quite easy to argue that the former argument is worse than the latter. It latter argument is a very simple, dogmatic argument, and is thus easily dismissed by anyone who does not believe in the dogma in question. The former argument is one that clads itself in a veneer of facts, safety and understanding, while hiding a reserve of lies and bigotry. As such, it is a far more insidious argument that can do greater damage all the while the people hypocritically claim to be helping. --- It is difficult to find statistics and/or studies that have radfem motives with there being so little of us. The only notable exception is the studies of gay men’s brains being found to be “more similar” to women’s brains than other men’s, rendering the “brain of a woman/man” argument void, but this finding was decades in the past. Sources: [Scientific American ](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/) I feel the main mistake is to look at conservatives as a wing of gender critical feminism. It is a branch of feminism, and you can certainly call it bigoted if you so choose, but you cannot deny it’s entire motivation. --- >It is difficult to find statistics and/or studies that have radfem motives with there being so little of us. What do you mean by this? Statistics and studies should never have a political bias. If the current science shows that things are one way, if a bunch of radfems take control, they can't change the science. They can't disprove something that has already been proven. > The only notable exception is the studies of gay men’s brains being found to be “more similar” to women’s brains than other men’s, rendering the “brain of a woman/man” argument void, but this finding was decades in the past. Sources: Scientific American It does not render the "brain of woman/man" argument void. It reinforces it. If gay men's brains look more similar to cis women's brain in some aspects, and trans women's brains are also similar to cis women's brains in some aspects, all that proves is that there are differences in the brains of cis vs. trans people, and gay vs. straight people.	[removed] --- I can understand why someone would feel that way if that’s how they saw all three sides. I hate to say it, but my post was more about the way liberals attack “TERF”s more than conservatives, but I appreciate your contribution! --- [removed]	mv0iyy	CMV: The liberal left’s treatment of “TERF”s is NOT justified.	I’m going to start by saying I am not conservative - I’m further left than Bernie Sanders. But my quarrel with liberals does not lie in ideological differences; I feel their treatment of what they call “TERFs” is misogynistic at best and a vicious silencing tactic at worst. There is more of an out-roar against TERFs from the liberal left than almost anything else. Any “TERF” is sent death threats and other threats of violence from them, and at first, you may counter with, “But these people believe TERFs are specifically planning their actions to block trans rights!” To that, I say, why are the liberals then more furious over a small fringe group of feminists than republicans, who are a vastly larger group, aren’t feminists, and act DELIBERATELY to block trans people from going into the military just to keep “those “LGBT”’s” out? Conservatives do occasionally get death threats from liberals, but certainly not to the level “TERF”s receive. Moreover, “TERF”s, or more accurately, gender critical feminists, work to counter movements from the trans community they believe will endanger women’s lives or safety (such as specifically allowing men into the women’s bathroom, rendering any mild-to-moderate complaints against any man in their bathroom void) or that try to erase facts in the name of certain people being triggered by them (such as insisting sex can be changed). Conservatives work to counter nearly all movements from the trans community mainly because they are “going against” a God they might not even believe in. These are very different motives, and it does not make sense to vilify “TERF”s even more than republicans.	vanillaandjasmine	3	3	[ { "author": "10ebbor10", "id": "gv92xdw", "score": 18, "text": ">There is more of an out-roar against TERFs from the liberal left than almost anything else. Any “TERF” is sent death threats and other threats of violence from them, and at first, you may counter with, “But these people believe TERFs are specifically planning their actions to block trans rights!” To that, I say, why are the liberals then more furious over a small fringe group of feminists than republicans, who are a vastly larger group, aren’t feminists, and act DELIBERATELY to block trans people from going into the military just to keep “those “LGBT”’s” out? Conservatives do occasionally get death threats from liberals, but certainly not to the level “TERF”s receive.\n\nDo you actually have any statistics on this? Or is this stuff you assume to be true?\n\nEdit : \n>Moreover, “TERF”s, or more accurately, gender critical feminists, work to counter movements from the trans community they believe will endanger women’s lives or safety (such as specifically allowing men into the women’s bathroom, rendering any mild-to-moderate complaints against any man in their bathroom void) or that try to erase facts in the name of certain people being triggered by them (such as insisting sex can be changed). Conservatives work to counter nearly all movements from the trans community mainly because they are “going against” a God they might not even believe in. These are very different motives, and it does not make sense to vilify “TERF”s even more than republicans.\n\nIt's actually quite easy to argue that the former argument is worse than the latter.\n\nIt latter argument is a very simple, dogmatic argument, and is thus easily dismissed by anyone who does not believe in the dogma in question.\n\nThe former argument is one that clads itself in a veneer of facts, safety and understanding, while hiding a reserve of lies and bigotry. As such, it is a far more insidious argument that can do greater damage all the while the people hypocritically claim to be helping.", "timestamp": 1618954182 }, { "author": "vanillaandjasmine", "id": "gv96nml", "score": -2, "text": "It is difficult to find statistics and/or studies that have radfem motives with there being so little of us. The only notable exception is the studies of gay men’s brains being found to be “more similar” to women’s brains than other men’s, rendering the “brain of a woman/man” argument void, but this finding was decades in the past. Sources: [Scientific American ](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/) \n\nI feel the main mistake is to look at conservatives as a wing of gender critical feminism. It is a branch of feminism, and you can certainly call it bigoted if you so choose, but you cannot deny it’s entire motivation.", "timestamp": 1618955781 }, { "author": "thinkingpains", "id": "gv97ixe", "score": 8, "text": ">It is difficult to find statistics and/or studies that have radfem motives with there being so little of us.\n\nWhat do you mean by this? Statistics and studies should never have a political bias. If the current science shows that things are one way, if a bunch of radfems take control, they can't change the science. They can't disprove something that has already been proven. \n\n> The only notable exception is the studies of gay men’s brains being found to be “more similar” to women’s brains than other men’s, rendering the “brain of a woman/man” argument void, but this finding was decades in the past. Sources: Scientific American \n\nIt does not render the \"brain of woman/man\" argument void. It reinforces it. If gay men's brains look more similar to cis women's brain in some aspects, and trans women's brains are also similar to cis women's brains in some aspects, all that proves is that there are differences in the brains of cis vs. trans people, and gay vs. straight people.", "timestamp": 1618956154 } ]	[ { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gv90xze", "score": 31, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1618953360 }, { "author": "vanillaandjasmine", "id": "gv91bb3", "score": -5, "text": "I can understand why someone would feel that way if that’s how they saw all three sides. I hate to say it, but my post was more about the way liberals attack “TERF”s more than conservatives, but I appreciate your contribution!", "timestamp": 1618953514 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "gv93333", "score": 32, "text": "[removed]", "timestamp": 1618954248 } ]	[ "gv92xdw", "gv96nml", "gv97ixe" ]	[ "gv90xze", "gv91bb3", "gv93333" ]
CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague. Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity. --- I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . Which is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. --- > I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. He said it was "distinct". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to "unique" that is not necessary here. It is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity. --- I have to say distinct and unique is synonymous , so it doesn't do well to use them both here. What exactly is the distinction? Any one who comes here from any 52 African countries, can be called African American. Basically what we are doing is saying , " Hey 400 years ago your ancestors came from Africa, despite being culturally, racially , and ideologically different, you are still Africans." This cannot be further from the truth. Let's use an extreme example here . If im Nigerian, I have family in Nigeria, I eat Nigerian food , I dress in my traditional Nigerian clothing, I speak Nigerian or my parents speak it . Nigeria is my home , even if I've been in America 10 years . I can go to Nigeria anytime I want . Now where can Black Americans go? What is home to them ? What cultures do they have ? They are American AF.. and I feel America should be proud to have created a new race. They deserve a unique name and should be identified as a new race. They have nothing in common with immigrants from Africa Due to European mixtures they are mostly lighter, different face and skull shapes . When will they stop being African American ? 1000-3000 years from now ? Whats the appropriate time frame for a new race to be recognized? --- You're right, the terminology is problematic, which is why a lot of Black Americans choose to simply identify as black, or as just American, depending on what they prefer. At the same time there are some who choose to identify as African American because they want to maintain the identity that their ancestors were brought from Africa. I actually think that as long as White Americans aren't constantly being referred to as European American (and they aren't), then Asian and African Americans should simply be considered as American. In any case, I don't think there any benefit to identifying them as a separate race. It'd just be another way to identify, but 'black American' already serves that function for the most part.	What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race? --- It would provide a cultural and racial distinction. I feel that " African American " is extremely bare bones. You dont see many whites calling themselves " European Americans " Whites are simply called Americans. I feel this would give a new race something to be happy about. African American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves. --- Well, you do see some white people calling themselves "Italian-Americans" or "Irish-Americans." This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. You didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that "American" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category? --- It's hard to really define American as a new race, Brazilians are alot more mixed than Americans. Segregation in America stopped mixing on the same scale as Brazil. Due to segregation , people stuck with their own kind , in white only or black only towns. Had segregation not existed , Is be more comfortable labeling America as a race, as most people here have had ancestors here, since the 16-1800's. It's hard to state an American race when we are so immigration friendly. It makes it harder to have anything in common to distinguish a race. Im defining African American as a nee race because of the circumstances. Unlike white Americans , most Black Americans were the result of the slave trade. While Europeans kept coming here , via immigration in the 18-1900's most Africans did not. America was not a friendly place for Africans , so most would have stayed in Africa or immigrated in the middle east and Europe. America is European heavy due to European immigration . The few blacks we have (12%) have no allegience to Africa, have never been to Africa , do not speak any African languages, bow to no African gods. Africans I've met do not consider American Blacks African. The only thing this " race have in common is their skin , and their origins. In order to move on from the divide in this country, letting go of that origin is a start. When you say African American , you remeber these people came from Africa via kidnap and force. Majority aren't even 80 percent African via rape. Non speak and foreign tongue . They are made in America. Hope that gives you a better view of what I'm trying to say. --- I'm still having some trouble, but this is what I think you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong): The fact that the rape of African slave women by white slaveowners was prevalent is a justification for classifying the descendents of African slaves as a new biologically/genetically defined race and the motivation for such a reclassification is that the term "african american" reminds people that slavery existed and is a roadblock to racial harmony in the US. Does that seem accurate? If so, what evidence do you have that suggests that renaming ~13% of the US population will heal race relations or make people forget the horrors of slavery? I can't see how simply adding a new word to the US census will achieve these things: it didn't help when we went from Negro to African-American, from African-American to black. The problem isn't in the classification, its in the history and continued mistreatment of black Americans (and that includes recent immigrants from Africa). In another comment, you rejected the idea of simply calling them "American" because that would give a false sense of unity, but unity seems to be your goal, right? I'm not even sure your argument supports your own view.	79a5d4	CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague.	Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Muttlyfegirl	5	5	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dp0bcwk", "score": 8, "text": "All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity.", "timestamp": 1509198582 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bvb0", "score": 2, "text": "I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . \n\nWhich is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. ", "timestamp": 1509199449 }, { "author": "Tsegen", "id": "dp0ffk7", "score": 5, "text": "> I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. \n\nHe said it was \"distinct\". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to \"unique\" that is not necessary here.\n\nIt is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity. ", "timestamp": 1509204698 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0h4ds", "score": 0, "text": "I have to say distinct and unique is synonymous , so it doesn't do well to use them both here.\n\nWhat exactly is the distinction? Any one who comes here from any 52 African countries, can be called African American.\n\nBasically what we are doing is saying , \" Hey 400 years ago your ancestors came from Africa, despite being culturally, racially , and ideologically different, you are still Africans.\"\n\nThis cannot be further from the truth.\n\nLet's use an extreme example here .\n\nIf im Nigerian, I have family in Nigeria, I eat Nigerian food , I dress in my traditional Nigerian clothing, I speak Nigerian or my parents speak it . Nigeria is my home , even if I've been in America 10 years .\n\nI can go to Nigeria anytime I want .\n\nNow where can Black Americans go? What is home to them ? What cultures do they have ?\n\nThey are American AF.. and I feel America should be proud to have created a new race. \nThey deserve a unique name and should be identified as a new race.\n\nThey have nothing in common with immigrants from Africa \nDue to European mixtures they are mostly lighter, different face and skull shapes . \n\nWhen will they stop being African American ? 1000-3000 years from now ?\nWhats the appropriate time frame for a new race to be recognized? ", "timestamp": 1509206969 }, { "author": "deathnate4", "id": "dp0hcay", "score": 3, "text": "You're right, the terminology is problematic, which is why a lot of Black Americans choose to simply identify as black, or as just American, depending on what they prefer. At the same time there are some who choose to identify as African American because they want to maintain the identity that their ancestors were brought from Africa. I actually think that as long as White Americans aren't constantly being referred to as European American (and they aren't), then Asian and African Americans should simply be considered as American. \n\nIn any case, I don't think there any benefit to identifying them as a separate race. It'd just be another way to identify, but 'black American' already serves that function for the most part. ", "timestamp": 1509207255 } ]	[ { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bgz5", "score": 5, "text": "What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race?", "timestamp": 1509198774 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bmlp", "score": 2, "text": "It would provide a cultural and racial distinction.\nI feel that \" African American \" is extremely bare bones. \nYou dont see many whites calling themselves \" European Americans \"\n\nWhites are simply called Americans.\nI feel this would give a new race something to be happy about.\nAfrican American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves.", "timestamp": 1509199045 }, { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bx99", "score": 10, "text": "Well, you do see some white people calling themselves \"Italian-Americans\" or \"Irish-Americans.\" This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. \n\nYou didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that \"American\" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category?\n", "timestamp": 1509199534 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0cf96", "score": 1, "text": "It's hard to really define American as a new race, Brazilians are alot more mixed than Americans. Segregation in America stopped mixing on the same scale as Brazil.\n\nDue to segregation , people stuck with their own kind , in white only or black only towns.\nHad segregation not existed , Is be more comfortable labeling America as a race, as most people here have had ancestors here, since the 16-1800's.\n\nIt's hard to state an American race when we are so immigration friendly. \nIt makes it harder to have anything in common to distinguish a race.\n\nIm defining African American as a nee race because of the circumstances. \n\nUnlike white Americans , most Black Americans were the result of the slave trade. \nWhile Europeans kept coming here , via immigration in the 18-1900's most Africans did not. \n\nAmerica was not a friendly place for Africans , so most would have stayed in Africa or immigrated in the middle east and Europe.\n\nAmerica is European heavy due to European immigration . \nThe few blacks we have (12%) have no allegience to Africa, have never been to Africa , do not speak any African languages, bow to no African gods.\n\nAfricans I've met do not consider American Blacks African.\nThe only thing this \" race have in common is their skin , and their origins. \n\nIn order to move on from the divide in this country, letting go of that origin is a start. \nWhen you say African American , you remeber these people came from Africa via kidnap and force. \n\nMajority aren't even 80 percent African via rape.\nNon speak and foreign tongue .\nThey are made in America.\n\nHope that gives you a better view of what I'm trying to say.", "timestamp": 1509200338 }, { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0e2v9", "score": 6, "text": "I'm still having some trouble, but this is what I think you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong): The fact that the rape of African slave women by white slaveowners was prevalent is a justification for classifying the descendents of African slaves as a new biologically/genetically defined race and the motivation for such a reclassification is that the term \"african american\" reminds people that slavery existed and is a roadblock to racial harmony in the US. Does that seem accurate?\n\nIf so, what evidence do you have that suggests that renaming ~13% of the US population will heal race relations or make people forget the horrors of slavery? I can't see how simply adding a new word to the US census will achieve these things: it didn't help when we went from Negro to African-American, from African-American to black. The problem isn't in the classification, its in the history and continued mistreatment of black Americans (and that includes recent immigrants from Africa). In another comment, you rejected the idea of simply calling them \"American\" because that would give a false sense of unity, but unity seems to be your goal, right? I'm not even sure your argument supports your own view.", "timestamp": 1509202822 } ]	[ "dp0bcwk", "dp0bvb0", "dp0ffk7", "dp0h4ds", "dp0hcay" ]	[ "dp0bgz5", "dp0bmlp", "dp0bx99", "dp0cf96", "dp0e2v9" ]
CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague. Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity. --- I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . Which is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. --- > I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. He said it was "distinct". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to "unique" that is not necessary here. It is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity.	What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race? --- It would provide a cultural and racial distinction. I feel that " African American " is extremely bare bones. You dont see many whites calling themselves " European Americans " Whites are simply called Americans. I feel this would give a new race something to be happy about. African American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves. --- Well, you do see some white people calling themselves "Italian-Americans" or "Irish-Americans." This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. You didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that "American" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category?	79a5d4	CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague.	Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Muttlyfegirl	3	3	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dp0bcwk", "score": 8, "text": "All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity.", "timestamp": 1509198582 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bvb0", "score": 2, "text": "I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . \n\nWhich is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. ", "timestamp": 1509199449 }, { "author": "Tsegen", "id": "dp0ffk7", "score": 5, "text": "> I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. \n\nHe said it was \"distinct\". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to \"unique\" that is not necessary here.\n\nIt is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity. ", "timestamp": 1509204698 } ]	[ { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bgz5", "score": 5, "text": "What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race?", "timestamp": 1509198774 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bmlp", "score": 2, "text": "It would provide a cultural and racial distinction.\nI feel that \" African American \" is extremely bare bones. \nYou dont see many whites calling themselves \" European Americans \"\n\nWhites are simply called Americans.\nI feel this would give a new race something to be happy about.\nAfrican American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves.", "timestamp": 1509199045 }, { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bx99", "score": 10, "text": "Well, you do see some white people calling themselves \"Italian-Americans\" or \"Irish-Americans.\" This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. \n\nYou didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that \"American\" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category?\n", "timestamp": 1509199534 } ]	[ "dp0bcwk", "dp0bvb0", "dp0ffk7" ]	[ "dp0bgz5", "dp0bmlp", "dp0bx99" ]
CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague. Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race? --- It would provide a cultural and racial distinction. I feel that " African American " is extremely bare bones. You dont see many whites calling themselves " European Americans " Whites are simply called Americans. I feel this would give a new race something to be happy about. African American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves. --- Well, you do see some white people calling themselves "Italian-Americans" or "Irish-Americans." This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. You didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that "American" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category? --- It's hard to really define American as a new race, Brazilians are alot more mixed than Americans. Segregation in America stopped mixing on the same scale as Brazil. Due to segregation , people stuck with their own kind , in white only or black only towns. Had segregation not existed , Is be more comfortable labeling America as a race, as most people here have had ancestors here, since the 16-1800's. It's hard to state an American race when we are so immigration friendly. It makes it harder to have anything in common to distinguish a race. Im defining African American as a nee race because of the circumstances. Unlike white Americans , most Black Americans were the result of the slave trade. While Europeans kept coming here , via immigration in the 18-1900's most Africans did not. America was not a friendly place for Africans , so most would have stayed in Africa or immigrated in the middle east and Europe. America is European heavy due to European immigration . The few blacks we have (12%) have no allegience to Africa, have never been to Africa , do not speak any African languages, bow to no African gods. Africans I've met do not consider American Blacks African. The only thing this " race have in common is their skin , and their origins. In order to move on from the divide in this country, letting go of that origin is a start. When you say African American , you remeber these people came from Africa via kidnap and force. Majority aren't even 80 percent African via rape. Non speak and foreign tongue . They are made in America. Hope that gives you a better view of what I'm trying to say. --- I'm still having some trouble, but this is what I think you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong): The fact that the rape of African slave women by white slaveowners was prevalent is a justification for classifying the descendents of African slaves as a new biologically/genetically defined race and the motivation for such a reclassification is that the term "african american" reminds people that slavery existed and is a roadblock to racial harmony in the US. Does that seem accurate? If so, what evidence do you have that suggests that renaming ~13% of the US population will heal race relations or make people forget the horrors of slavery? I can't see how simply adding a new word to the US census will achieve these things: it didn't help when we went from Negro to African-American, from African-American to black. The problem isn't in the classification, its in the history and continued mistreatment of black Americans (and that includes recent immigrants from Africa). In another comment, you rejected the idea of simply calling them "American" because that would give a false sense of unity, but unity seems to be your goal, right? I'm not even sure your argument supports your own view. --- I can see your confusion. Charlize Therone Is a white actress from South Africa , who could use the term African American. My arguement is that it's simply to vague. Using American doesn't work because American isnt a race. Anyone from 52 African countries can come to America, become naturalized, and use the label African American. Creating a little Nigeria or little Sudan in a city, would benefit the Sudanese and Nigerians there , as they can share culture and food from their native countries ... This wouldn't help African Americans who's been here for 500 years , as they are not African . We are using African American to describe people who's last ancestors on Africa was 400 years ago, for some. We use words like Urban to describe their cultures. Look at Miami. We have little Haiti, Little Cuba. Should African Americans have little Africa America ? These people only know America. Were made in America , taught and bred in America " slave owners bred slaves and paired slaves." I believe they are more than eligible to be given. Meaningful race name . This is hard for me to explain, ask me questions if needed. --- As you mentioned before, no one uses the term "European American". Most immigrants and children of immigrants know their country of origin, and they can use that country as an identifier. So Charlize Theron could if she wished, identify as a South African American, or as South African AND American as it says on her Wikipedia page. Just like an immigrant from Italy may call themselves an Italian American, or Italian and American, and their descendants may call themselves Italian Americans. A recent immigrant from Sudan can call themselves a Sudanese American. My point is that at the time it was coined, and at all times since, African American has never been regularly or widely used by people immigrating from African countries willingly, except for a handful of people actively trolling. The meaning is clear. And necessary. Because the descendants of slaves don't know their ancestor's country of origin, and are cut off from that countries culture, their ethnic and cultural identity can't be described by the name of any country like most willing immigrants can. Yet, their culture, their identity, their treatment by others in society are worth talking about. We can't name this group merely by the color of their skin, because they are distinct from other dark skinned people through a centuries long history in the US. I hope I don't have to explain why calling them "Slave Descendant Americans" is not a good idea. So "African Americans" was chosen because it is not used by any other group and it describes their roots as a diaspora from several parts of the African continent.	All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity. --- I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . Which is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. --- > I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. He said it was "distinct". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to "unique" that is not necessary here. It is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity. --- I have to say distinct and unique is synonymous , so it doesn't do well to use them both here. What exactly is the distinction? Any one who comes here from any 52 African countries, can be called African American. Basically what we are doing is saying , " Hey 400 years ago your ancestors came from Africa, despite being culturally, racially , and ideologically different, you are still Africans." This cannot be further from the truth. Let's use an extreme example here . If im Nigerian, I have family in Nigeria, I eat Nigerian food , I dress in my traditional Nigerian clothing, I speak Nigerian or my parents speak it . Nigeria is my home , even if I've been in America 10 years . I can go to Nigeria anytime I want . Now where can Black Americans go? What is home to them ? What cultures do they have ? They are American AF.. and I feel America should be proud to have created a new race. They deserve a unique name and should be identified as a new race. They have nothing in common with immigrants from Africa Due to European mixtures they are mostly lighter, different face and skull shapes . When will they stop being African American ? 1000-3000 years from now ? Whats the appropriate time frame for a new race to be recognized? --- You're right, the terminology is problematic, which is why a lot of Black Americans choose to simply identify as black, or as just American, depending on what they prefer. At the same time there are some who choose to identify as African American because they want to maintain the identity that their ancestors were brought from Africa. I actually think that as long as White Americans aren't constantly being referred to as European American (and they aren't), then Asian and African Americans should simply be considered as American. In any case, I don't think there any benefit to identifying them as a separate race. It'd just be another way to identify, but 'black American' already serves that function for the most part. --- Black American does not . For some it's offensive . It appears to be an easy choice , but if it offends it simply cannot be used . This is due to Jim Crow and and racial cartoons depicting black as ugly . Can you imagine a teacher saying , " Thomas is one of the smartest Black students wed have , really smart Black boy." I may be reaching here , but black is too vague. --- Yes exactly, some don't like the term, some do. Thing is, even if you ome up with an entirely new term, there's no guarantee that everyone would be ok with it. I am personally African and prefer not to identify as black because of the tendency of associating being black with being black American specifically, but I also have African friends who do choose to identify as black, for one reason or another, and there are contexts where I feel like I have to as well. So yeah I agree that black is vague, but I honestly don't think there's any way to properly do this regardless. Racial classifications are problematic by nature. Because they're very narrow-sighted, there will always be issues with them.	79a5d4	CMV:CMV: I feel like African Americans, should be credited as a new race. We Identify them with Africa , but most have never been to Africa, and Africa isn't a country, so that label is vague.	Recent studies show that most African Americans are 15-25 percent European. They are classified as African by America, altho like Brazilians, Cape Verdeans, Peurto Ricans, and Latinos , they are a newly created race. Even Haitians are treated as a new race , despite being more African than African Americans. It also would seperate them from being labeled with new immigrants from Africa. Some one who's ancestors has been in America since the 1700s shouldn't be considered the same as a new immigrant from Africa. We must also look at the fact that most are 15-25 percent European. This is an unique American mixture. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Muttlyfegirl	7	7	[ { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bgz5", "score": 5, "text": "What is a stake in this distinction? What kind of problems do you think this reclassification could solve? Also, how are you defining race?", "timestamp": 1509198774 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bmlp", "score": 2, "text": "It would provide a cultural and racial distinction.\nI feel that \" African American \" is extremely bare bones. \nYou dont see many whites calling themselves \" European Americans \"\n\nWhites are simply called Americans.\nI feel this would give a new race something to be happy about.\nAfrican American is associated with as 2nd class American citizens and former slaves.", "timestamp": 1509199045 }, { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0bx99", "score": 10, "text": "Well, you do see some white people calling themselves \"Italian-Americans\" or \"Irish-Americans.\" This is pretty common, actually, particularly in places where older immigrant communities were established and the now fourth-fifth generation descendants of those immigrants still live. \n\nYou didn't answer how you're defining race though, which I think is really important to how someone might go about changing your view. Do you think that \"American\" is a racial category in itself, or that white Americans (who are on average more genetically mixed than their European counterparts) should be considered a new racial category?\n", "timestamp": 1509199534 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0cf96", "score": 1, "text": "It's hard to really define American as a new race, Brazilians are alot more mixed than Americans. Segregation in America stopped mixing on the same scale as Brazil.\n\nDue to segregation , people stuck with their own kind , in white only or black only towns.\nHad segregation not existed , Is be more comfortable labeling America as a race, as most people here have had ancestors here, since the 16-1800's.\n\nIt's hard to state an American race when we are so immigration friendly. \nIt makes it harder to have anything in common to distinguish a race.\n\nIm defining African American as a nee race because of the circumstances. \n\nUnlike white Americans , most Black Americans were the result of the slave trade. \nWhile Europeans kept coming here , via immigration in the 18-1900's most Africans did not. \n\nAmerica was not a friendly place for Africans , so most would have stayed in Africa or immigrated in the middle east and Europe.\n\nAmerica is European heavy due to European immigration . \nThe few blacks we have (12%) have no allegience to Africa, have never been to Africa , do not speak any African languages, bow to no African gods.\n\nAfricans I've met do not consider American Blacks African.\nThe only thing this \" race have in common is their skin , and their origins. \n\nIn order to move on from the divide in this country, letting go of that origin is a start. \nWhen you say African American , you remeber these people came from Africa via kidnap and force. \n\nMajority aren't even 80 percent African via rape.\nNon speak and foreign tongue .\nThey are made in America.\n\nHope that gives you a better view of what I'm trying to say.", "timestamp": 1509200338 }, { "author": "kittysezrelax", "id": "dp0e2v9", "score": 6, "text": "I'm still having some trouble, but this is what I think you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong): The fact that the rape of African slave women by white slaveowners was prevalent is a justification for classifying the descendents of African slaves as a new biologically/genetically defined race and the motivation for such a reclassification is that the term \"african american\" reminds people that slavery existed and is a roadblock to racial harmony in the US. Does that seem accurate?\n\nIf so, what evidence do you have that suggests that renaming ~13% of the US population will heal race relations or make people forget the horrors of slavery? I can't see how simply adding a new word to the US census will achieve these things: it didn't help when we went from Negro to African-American, from African-American to black. The problem isn't in the classification, its in the history and continued mistreatment of black Americans (and that includes recent immigrants from Africa). In another comment, you rejected the idea of simply calling them \"American\" because that would give a false sense of unity, but unity seems to be your goal, right? I'm not even sure your argument supports your own view.", "timestamp": 1509202822 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0gg7g", "score": 2, "text": "I can see your confusion.\nCharlize Therone Is a white actress from South Africa , who could use the term African American.\nMy arguement is that it's simply to vague. \n\nUsing American doesn't work because American isnt a race.\nAnyone from 52 African countries can come to America, become naturalized, and use the label African American. \n\nCreating a little Nigeria or little Sudan in a city, would benefit the Sudanese and Nigerians there , as they can share culture and food from their native countries ... \n\nThis wouldn't help African Americans who's been here for 500 years , as they are not African . We are using African American to describe people who's last ancestors on Africa was 400 years ago, for some.\n\nWe use words like Urban to describe their cultures. \nLook at Miami. We have little Haiti, Little Cuba. \nShould African Americans have little Africa America ?\n\nThese people only know America. Were made in America , taught and bred in America \" slave owners bred slaves and paired slaves.\"\n\nI believe they are more than eligible to be given. Meaningful race name .\n\nThis is hard for me to explain, ask me questions if needed.", "timestamp": 1509206086 }, { "author": "onelasttimeoh", "id": "dp0ksly", "score": 5, "text": "As you mentioned before, no one uses the term \"European American\".\n\nMost immigrants and children of immigrants know their country of origin, and they can use that country as an identifier. So Charlize Theron could if she wished, identify as a South African American, or as South African AND American as it says on her Wikipedia page. \n\nJust like an immigrant from Italy may call themselves an Italian American, or Italian and American, and their descendants may call themselves Italian Americans.\n\nA recent immigrant from Sudan can call themselves a Sudanese American.\n\nMy point is that at the time it was coined, and at all times since, African American has never been regularly or widely used by people immigrating from African countries willingly, except for a handful of people actively trolling. The meaning is clear.\n\nAnd necessary. Because the descendants of slaves don't know their ancestor's country of origin, and are cut off from that countries culture, their ethnic and cultural identity can't be described by the name of any country like most willing immigrants can.\n\nYet, their culture, their identity, their treatment by others in society are worth talking about. We can't name this group merely by the color of their skin, because they are distinct from other dark skinned people through a centuries long history in the US. I hope I don't have to explain why calling them \"Slave Descendant Americans\" is not a good idea. So \"African Americans\" was chosen because it is not used by any other group and it describes their roots as a diaspora from several parts of the African continent.", "timestamp": 1509211691 } ]	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dp0bcwk", "score": 8, "text": "All of your examples are of ethnicities, not of race. African americas are also noted as a distinct ethnicity.", "timestamp": 1509198582 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0bvb0", "score": 2, "text": "I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. It simply means you are an American from Africa . \n\nWhich is false by alot of standards. Maybe 10+ generations ago they were from Africa. ", "timestamp": 1509199449 }, { "author": "Tsegen", "id": "dp0ffk7", "score": 5, "text": "> I have to disagree. African American isnt unique or noteworthy. \n\nHe said it was \"distinct\". Perhaps you're attaching a value judgment to \"unique\" that is not necessary here.\n\nIt is, certainly, a distinct ethnicity. ", "timestamp": 1509204698 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0h4ds", "score": 0, "text": "I have to say distinct and unique is synonymous , so it doesn't do well to use them both here.\n\nWhat exactly is the distinction? Any one who comes here from any 52 African countries, can be called African American.\n\nBasically what we are doing is saying , \" Hey 400 years ago your ancestors came from Africa, despite being culturally, racially , and ideologically different, you are still Africans.\"\n\nThis cannot be further from the truth.\n\nLet's use an extreme example here .\n\nIf im Nigerian, I have family in Nigeria, I eat Nigerian food , I dress in my traditional Nigerian clothing, I speak Nigerian or my parents speak it . Nigeria is my home , even if I've been in America 10 years .\n\nI can go to Nigeria anytime I want .\n\nNow where can Black Americans go? What is home to them ? What cultures do they have ?\n\nThey are American AF.. and I feel America should be proud to have created a new race. \nThey deserve a unique name and should be identified as a new race.\n\nThey have nothing in common with immigrants from Africa \nDue to European mixtures they are mostly lighter, different face and skull shapes . \n\nWhen will they stop being African American ? 1000-3000 years from now ?\nWhats the appropriate time frame for a new race to be recognized? ", "timestamp": 1509206969 }, { "author": "deathnate4", "id": "dp0hcay", "score": 3, "text": "You're right, the terminology is problematic, which is why a lot of Black Americans choose to simply identify as black, or as just American, depending on what they prefer. At the same time there are some who choose to identify as African American because they want to maintain the identity that their ancestors were brought from Africa. I actually think that as long as White Americans aren't constantly being referred to as European American (and they aren't), then Asian and African Americans should simply be considered as American. \n\nIn any case, I don't think there any benefit to identifying them as a separate race. It'd just be another way to identify, but 'black American' already serves that function for the most part. ", "timestamp": 1509207255 }, { "author": "Muttlyfegirl", "id": "dp0hsyv", "score": 1, "text": "Black American does not . For some it's offensive . It appears to be an easy choice , but if it offends it simply cannot be used . \n\nThis is due to Jim Crow and and racial cartoons depicting black as ugly . Can you imagine a teacher saying , \" Thomas is one of the smartest Black students wed have , really smart Black boy.\" I may be reaching here , but black is too vague. ", "timestamp": 1509207852 }, { "author": "deathnate4", "id": "dp0hy63", "score": 3, "text": "Yes exactly, some don't like the term, some do. Thing is, even if you ome up with an entirely new term, there's no guarantee that everyone would be ok with it. I am personally African and prefer not to identify as black because of the tendency of associating being black with being black American specifically, but I also have African friends who do choose to identify as black, for one reason or another, and there are contexts where I feel like I have to as well. So yeah I agree that black is vague, but I honestly don't think there's any way to properly do this regardless. Racial classifications are problematic by nature. Because they're very narrow-sighted, there will always be issues with them. ", "timestamp": 1509208038 } ]	[ "dp0bgz5", "dp0bmlp", "dp0bx99", "dp0cf96", "dp0e2v9", "dp0gg7g", "dp0ksly" ]	[ "dp0bcwk", "dp0bvb0", "dp0ffk7", "dp0h4ds", "dp0hcay", "dp0hsyv", "dp0hy63" ]
CMV: the Dallas shooting by the off-duty officer Amber Guyger can reasonably be believed to be an honest, very unlucky and very costly mistake. This is the shooting of the black guy by a cop in his own house Reddit and Twitter are losing their shit over. Here's the story as we know it now from the point of view of the cop. After working a shift, she was returning home, but got on the wrong floor in her apartment complex. Due to all floors being identical, she didn't notice her mistake. She attempted to get into the apartment that is identical to hers and is located just above hers. The door of that apartment was not fully closed, and despite not having the keycard she managed to get into that apartment. The lights in the apartment were off, and it was very dark inside. Botham Jean, the person who lived just above her, got up and went to investigate. She noticed him, based on the circumstances she thought him to be a home invader. She gave him verbal commands, which he didn't comply with, and later fired two shots, hitting him once. She called 911 to report the incident, it is then that she noticed she was not in her own apartment. Jean later died in the hospital. Guyger surrendered to the police and was charged with manslaughter. Based on the evidence, such as the 911 call, lack of evidence for breaking into the apartment, the fact that the victim and the perpetrator didn't seem to know each other, it is reasonable for me to consider the incident a very unlucky coincidence of mistakes and circumstances, where if only one of those didn't happen, the incident would not happen. As such, I believe the actions of the police officers to be entirely reasonable considering the circumstances (she was not trying to run from the police, she is not the main priority), I believe the manslaughter charge to be entirely reasonable, and I believe the actions of multiple activists and opinions of multiple redditors to be misinformed at best and malicious at worst. Change my view! _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	So she's claiming the door was ajar when she got there and she thought it was her apartment. But the victims lawyer has told the newspapers that witnesses in the building heard her banging on the door and shouting "let me in!" --- Can we see those witnesses' testimonies? I am ok with changing my view if those testimonies are released to the press, even if that is a couple of months later. --- http://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/dallas/article218154635.html	> She gave him verbal commands, which he didn't comply with is this her point of view or did the victim / a witness confirmed that? if not it can´t be proven imo. > , the fact that the victim and the perpetrator didn't seem to know each other, is irrelevant because psychopath don´t usually know their victims either. (just sayin) > I believe the actions of the police officers to be entirely reasonable i think it wasn´t since the shot didn´t have to be lethal. shoot them in the knee ffs. shouldn´t have been that difficult for a trained officer that had time to give vocal commands (allegedly) --- 1) The victim can't confirm anything, he's dead. There were no witnesses. I was telling the perpetrator's perspective, there's no way to prove that. It is impossible to verify or falsify. One would need to prove her intention to kill or any other incriminating claim by confronting something else in the story. 2) Is not evidence, and does not challenge my point of view 3) The police are trained to shoot center of mass, because this is the most reasonable way to quickly stop the threat. Also, legs are very hard to hit, due to them usually moving laterally and having a small lateral cross-section, especially in the dark. And lastly, a shot to the legs can be just as lethal as the shot to the center of mass. Here's a quick video that recaps these points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw --- > It is impossible to verify or falsify. So she might be lying about that?! > Also, legs are very hard to hit, due to them usually moving laterally and having a small lateral cross-section, especially in the dark. true, but if she had time to give commands and wait for no response she had also time to aim well. soo... And cops can´t tell me that they don´t know the people that are living next to them. Thats BS the first thing you do is get to know your neighbours (specially as a cop) so i don´t believe the "She didn´t recognized him" BS it just doesn´t fit. seems very odd	9f613u	CMV: the Dallas shooting by the off-duty officer Amber Guyger can reasonably be believed to be an honest, very unlucky and very costly mistake.	This is the shooting of the black guy by a cop in his own house Reddit and Twitter are losing their shit over. Here's the story as we know it now from the point of view of the cop. After working a shift, she was returning home, but got on the wrong floor in her apartment complex. Due to all floors being identical, she didn't notice her mistake. She attempted to get into the apartment that is identical to hers and is located just above hers. The door of that apartment was not fully closed, and despite not having the keycard she managed to get into that apartment. The lights in the apartment were off, and it was very dark inside. Botham Jean, the person who lived just above her, got up and went to investigate. She noticed him, based on the circumstances she thought him to be a home invader. She gave him verbal commands, which he didn't comply with, and later fired two shots, hitting him once. She called 911 to report the incident, it is then that she noticed she was not in her own apartment. Jean later died in the hospital. Guyger surrendered to the police and was charged with manslaughter. Based on the evidence, such as the 911 call, lack of evidence for breaking into the apartment, the fact that the victim and the perpetrator didn't seem to know each other, it is reasonable for me to consider the incident a very unlucky coincidence of mistakes and circumstances, where if only one of those didn't happen, the incident would not happen. As such, I believe the actions of the police officers to be entirely reasonable considering the circumstances (she was not trying to run from the police, she is not the main priority), I believe the manslaughter charge to be entirely reasonable, and I believe the actions of multiple activists and opinions of multiple redditors to be misinformed at best and malicious at worst. Change my view! _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Morphie12121	3	3	[ { "author": "Gwen-10", "id": "e5u27ll", "score": 25, "text": "So she's claiming the door was ajar when she got there and she thought it was her apartment. But the victims lawyer has told the newspapers that witnesses in the building heard her banging on the door and shouting \"let me in!\"", "timestamp": 1536744196 }, { "author": "Morphie12121", "id": "e5u2jv1", "score": 4, "text": "Can we see those witnesses' testimonies? I am ok with changing my view if those testimonies are released to the press, even if that is a couple of months later.", "timestamp": 1536744987 }, { "author": "DrQueerlove", "id": "e5u2q9i", "score": 12, "text": "http://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/dallas/article218154635.html", "timestamp": 1536745390 } ]	[ { "author": "HastingDevil", "id": "e5u1sjo", "score": 3, "text": "> She gave him verbal commands, which he didn't comply with\n\n is this her point of view or did the victim / a witness confirmed that? if not it can´t be proven imo.\n\n> , the fact that the victim and the perpetrator didn't seem to know each other, \n\nis irrelevant because psychopath don´t usually know their victims either. (just sayin)\n\n> I believe the actions of the police officers to be entirely reasonable \n\ni think it wasn´t since the shot didn´t have to be lethal. shoot them in the knee ffs. shouldn´t have been that difficult for a trained officer that had time to give vocal commands (allegedly)", "timestamp": 1536743213 }, { "author": "Morphie12121", "id": "e5u28nm", "score": 4, "text": "1) The victim can't confirm anything, he's dead. There were no witnesses. I was telling the perpetrator's perspective, there's no way to prove that. It is impossible to verify or falsify. One would need to prove her intention to kill or any other incriminating claim by confronting something else in the story.\n\n2) Is not evidence, and does not challenge my point of view\n\n3) The police are trained to shoot center of mass, because this is the most reasonable way to quickly stop the threat. Also, legs are very hard to hit, due to them usually moving laterally and having a small lateral cross-section, especially in the dark. And lastly, a shot to the legs can be just as lethal as the shot to the center of mass. Here's a quick video that recaps these points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S7tFrQI2Bw", "timestamp": 1536744265 }, { "author": "HastingDevil", "id": "e5u2hi1", "score": 3, "text": "> It is impossible to verify or falsify. \n\nSo she might be lying about that?!\n\n\n\n> Also, legs are very hard to hit, due to them usually moving laterally and having a small lateral cross-section, especially in the dark. \n\ntrue, but if she had time to give commands and wait for no response she had also time to aim well. soo...\n\n\n\nAnd cops can´t tell me that they don´t know the people that are living next to them. Thats BS the first thing you do is get to know your neighbours (specially as a cop) so i don´t believe the \"She didn´t recognized him\" BS it just doesn´t fit. seems very odd", "timestamp": 1536744836 } ]	[ "e5u27ll", "e5u2jv1", "e5u2q9i" ]	[ "e5u1sjo", "e5u28nm", "e5u2hi1" ]
CMV: Euthanasia should be legal in all jurisdictions to be performed on humans. Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly killing someone due to terminal illness or extreme pain. If this is allowed to be performed on animals, then why are humans any different? Since this is a messy political and ethical question, I’ll try to state my side of the problem only. - When a person is suffering, either do to cancer, life threatening injuries, a vegetative state, or any other factor that reduces their quality of life to nearly nothing, I whole heartedly believe that the execution of euthanasia should be allowed legally. What joy from life does a person get if they are trapped in a hospital bed, with no chance of getting better? If they have no hope of living their life, then why should we continue to force their hearts to beat via machines? All the machines do is keep the heart beating, and drain the families bank accounts. They don’t keep the brain active, they don’t allow for communication. It’s simply a way for a hospital to earn money from a grieving family. What is ethical about forcing someone to keep living, when they don’t receive the actual benefits of life? I just don’t see the moral responsibility of keeping someone alive when they receive no quality of life. I don’t get why someone should be kept alive if they have no chance of getting better.	What could possibly go wrong when you give people the right to kill others? --- The thing with euthanasia is that the patient or family must consent, or it will be considered murder --- Patients can consent in the moment, but people's outlook on life can change drastically in a matter of weeks to months. It's just a matter of timing, and I don't believe that someone should be able to make the decision to kill themselves because of how they temporarily feel, even if their illness is forever. Have you seen the movie called "Me Before You?" I know it's just a Hollywood depiction, but I think watching it might change your mind.	I would say that I'm not supportive of euthanasia when other people do it for you. If you are in pain. If you are going to suffer until you die, just do it yourself. Don't put that on someone else. If the person is unresponsive, and no hope, then leave it up to the family. --- But then you get into the case of whether or not suicide and assisted suicide is ethical. But you also say if the person is unresponsive, which would make it nonvoluntary euthanasia, which is illegal everywhere. You still have to weigh if the families decision is what the patient actually wants. --- If I'm dying, but can still do things. Then I would get my affairs in order so my family wouldn't have to do anything, and then I'd off myself and give details as to why. Whether or not it's ethical is between myself and the Almighty. It would be my life and my responsibility. If a person is on life support or something, then that's the family's call.	86t1uf	CMV: Euthanasia should be legal in all jurisdictions to be performed on humans.	Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly killing someone due to terminal illness or extreme pain. If this is allowed to be performed on animals, then why are humans any different? Since this is a messy political and ethical question, I’ll try to state my side of the problem only. - When a person is suffering, either do to cancer, life threatening injuries, a vegetative state, or any other factor that reduces their quality of life to nearly nothing, I whole heartedly believe that the execution of euthanasia should be allowed legally. What joy from life does a person get if they are trapped in a hospital bed, with no chance of getting better? If they have no hope of living their life, then why should we continue to force their hearts to beat via machines? All the machines do is keep the heart beating, and drain the families bank accounts. They don’t keep the brain active, they don’t allow for communication. It’s simply a way for a hospital to earn money from a grieving family. What is ethical about forcing someone to keep living, when they don’t receive the actual benefits of life? I just don’t see the moral responsibility of keeping someone alive when they receive no quality of life. I don’t get why someone should be kept alive if they have no chance of getting better.	SirenitoDelFrio	3	3	[ { "author": "bobbybrixton", "id": "dw840nn", "score": 0, "text": "What could possibly go wrong when you give people the right to kill others?", "timestamp": 1521920910 }, { "author": "SirenitoDelFrio", "id": "dw85gc3", "score": 1, "text": "The thing with euthanasia is that the patient or family must consent, or it will be considered murder", "timestamp": 1521922595 }, { "author": "briskyfresh", "id": "dw8iy05", "score": 2, "text": "Patients can consent in the moment, but people's outlook on life can change drastically in a matter of weeks to months. It's just a matter of timing, and I don't believe that someone should be able to make the decision to kill themselves because of how they temporarily feel, even if their illness is forever. \n\nHave you seen the movie called \"Me Before You?\" I know it's just a Hollywood depiction, but I think watching it might change your mind. \n\n", "timestamp": 1521938252 } ]	[ { "author": "Braegrmor", "id": "dw7n28h", "score": 6, "text": "I would say that I'm not supportive of euthanasia when other people do it for you. If you are in pain. If you are going to suffer until you die, just do it yourself. Don't put that on someone else. \n\nIf the person is unresponsive, and no hope, then leave it up to the family. ", "timestamp": 1521901305 }, { "author": "SirenitoDelFrio", "id": "dw7nk0j", "score": 8, "text": "But then you get into the case of whether or not suicide and assisted suicide is ethical. But you also say if the person is unresponsive, which would make it nonvoluntary euthanasia, which is illegal everywhere. You still have to weigh if the families decision is what the patient actually wants.", "timestamp": 1521901956 }, { "author": "Braegrmor", "id": "dw7ntor", "score": 3, "text": "If I'm dying, but can still do things. Then I would get my affairs in order so my family wouldn't have to do anything, and then I'd off myself and give details as to why. Whether or not it's ethical is between myself and the Almighty. It would be my life and my responsibility. \n\nIf a person is on life support or something, then that's the family's call. ", "timestamp": 1521902308 } ]	[ "dw840nn", "dw85gc3", "dw8iy05" ]	[ "dw7n28h", "dw7nk0j", "dw7ntor" ]
CMV: The Republican party hasn't swung to the right as much as the Democratic party has swung left. (USA politics) In 1996, most Democrats (and Republicans) were pro border walls and against gay marriage. Nowadays Democrats have abandoned their previous positions in favor of more progressive ones, but I constantly hear the talk about how far to the right Republicans have moved. I'm not seeing the alleged swing. Now Donald Trump is definitely an unusual case, but the Republican establishment had a pretty large percentage of the party against him until he won and they were stuck with him. I'm talking about the majority of Republicans, either political positions of a majority of Repub congressmen or some kind of gallup poll showing the beliefs of Republican voters has moved to the right. I know politics can get pretty heated, and I want to say I'm not looking for a fight. Let's have a civil conversation, I am not even a Republican. I just want to either verify my view that there has been no swing or abandon it in favor of a more accurate one. Also I know left and right can be hard to define, for example is gun control a left or right issue? The Nazi party was very pro gun control. I hope this doesn't interfere with the discussion.	Right and left are arbitrary terms. Tarriffs used to be a criticism of "left wing" politics because they hindered free trade. Now everyone in favor of free trade is labelled a "globalist." I don't think right and left matters very much. The only thing that really matters to me at this point is that half the country has bought into an authoritarian cult of personality and the other half is starting to realize that historically this has never really ended well. If you want to call that response a "swing to the left" go ahead, as long as it's a swing away from fascism and authoritarianism we can call it any direction you want. Also I'm gonna go ahead and say that in 1996 "most democrats and republicans" were not in favor of a border wall as evidenced by the fact that there is no border wall. If everybody wanted one, where is it? --- I acknowledged that left and right can be arbitrary and hard to pin down, but that doesn't make it impossible to change my view. \> Also I'm gonna go ahead and say that in 1996 "most democrats and republicans" were not in favor of a border wall as evidenced by the fact that there is no border wall. If everybody wanted one, where is it? [This bill](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996) passed the with overwhelming support. The wall was started around then, but hasn't been completed (typical government) --- Did that bill contain a border wall? I see stronger immigration restrictions, but nothing about a physical wall.	I think that what you’re getting at is true from a policy perspective but not a political one. I think the Republican Party has become more extreme: more insular, more us-vs-them, more media savvy, more hardline. To the point that they’re willing to overlook a lot of policy and character flaws in order to support their candidate, Trump, who has been a handful for the party to contain. I think that’s where the swing for the right has been- to a fervent support that mimics religion and is aided by the more extreme Christian portions of the party. I think this swing is more of a political seachange than Democratic politicians changing policy standards. --- Hmmm...I have heard of the religious right since the '80's, I am not sure they are a new wrinkle on things. I totally see the insular point, in the sense that is exists, but I'm not sure it is getting worse. I kind of have to go with policy here because feelings and behaviors are way harder to verify. Also I don't see media savvy as an extreme thing per se. --- I think the media savvy part has to do with the rise of social media. Fox News isn’t new and the religious right isn’t new, but I think they’ve reached new heights on places like Facebook where people are inundated with extremist propaganda that’s posted as news. And it’s targeted in ways that tv ads aren’t, only certain people see certain ads which amplifies the insularity and strategically, conservative fake news mills are much more prolific than leftist ones. From my own conservative in-laws, I’ve seen a lot of posts being shared about ‘legalized infanticide’ which is an extreme way of talking about abortion policy but it’s a hard line galvanizing issue for them. In that sense, I think the conversation they’re engaging in is totally based on political views that have existed for decades but are now way more insular and targeted than anything that’s existed before the last few years.	e22txu	CMV: The Republican party hasn't swung to the right as much as the Democratic party has swung left. (USA politics)	In 1996, most Democrats (and Republicans) were pro border walls and against gay marriage. Nowadays Democrats have abandoned their previous positions in favor of more progressive ones, but I constantly hear the talk about how far to the right Republicans have moved. I'm not seeing the alleged swing. Now Donald Trump is definitely an unusual case, but the Republican establishment had a pretty large percentage of the party against him until he won and they were stuck with him. I'm talking about the majority of Republicans, either political positions of a majority of Repub congressmen or some kind of gallup poll showing the beliefs of Republican voters has moved to the right. I know politics can get pretty heated, and I want to say I'm not looking for a fight. Let's have a civil conversation, I am not even a Republican. I just want to either verify my view that there has been no swing or abandon it in favor of a more accurate one. Also I know left and right can be hard to define, for example is gun control a left or right issue? The Nazi party was very pro gun control. I hope this doesn't interfere with the discussion.	Sgt_Spatula	3	3	[ { "author": "lUNITl", "id": "f8t4z8w", "score": 12, "text": "Right and left are arbitrary terms. Tarriffs used to be a criticism of \"left wing\" politics because they hindered free trade. Now everyone in favor of free trade is labelled a \"globalist.\" \n\nI don't think right and left matters very much. The only thing that really matters to me at this point is that half the country has bought into an authoritarian cult of personality and the other half is starting to realize that historically this has never really ended well. If you want to call that response a \"swing to the left\" go ahead, as long as it's a swing away from fascism and authoritarianism we can call it any direction you want.\n\nAlso I'm gonna go ahead and say that in 1996 \"most democrats and republicans\" were not in favor of a border wall as evidenced by the fact that there is no border wall. If everybody wanted one, where is it?", "timestamp": 1574795911 }, { "author": "Sgt_Spatula", "id": "f8t6njy", "score": -1, "text": "I acknowledged that left and right can be arbitrary and hard to pin down, but that doesn't make it impossible to change my view.\n\n \n\n\\> Also I'm gonna go ahead and say that in 1996 \"most democrats and republicans\" were not in favor of a border wall as evidenced by the fact that there is no border wall. If everybody wanted one, where is it?\n\n[This bill](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Immigration_Reform_and_Immigrant_Responsibility_Act_of_1996) passed the with overwhelming support. The wall was started around then, but hasn't been completed (typical government)", "timestamp": 1574796948 }, { "author": "zardeh", "id": "f8t72op", "score": 4, "text": "Did that bill contain a border wall?\n\nI see stronger immigration restrictions, but nothing about a physical wall.", "timestamp": 1574797206 } ]	[ { "author": "geeyoung373", "id": "f8t5hvc", "score": 7, "text": "I think that what you’re getting at is true from a policy perspective but not a political one. I think the Republican Party has become more extreme: more insular, more us-vs-them, more media savvy, more hardline. To the point that they’re willing to overlook a lot of policy and character flaws in order to support their candidate, Trump, who has been a handful for the party to contain.\n\nI think that’s where the swing for the right has been- to a fervent support that mimics religion and is aided by the more extreme Christian portions of the party. I think this swing is more of a political seachange than Democratic politicians changing policy standards.", "timestamp": 1574796232 }, { "author": "Sgt_Spatula", "id": "f8t6836", "score": 1, "text": "Hmmm...I have heard of the religious right since the '80's, I am not sure they are a new wrinkle on things. \n\nI totally see the insular point, in the sense that is exists, but I'm not sure it is getting worse. I kind of have to go with policy here because feelings and behaviors are way harder to verify. \n\nAlso I don't see media savvy as an extreme thing per se.", "timestamp": 1574796684 }, { "author": "geeyoung373", "id": "f8t84kn", "score": 2, "text": "I think the media savvy part has to do with the rise of social media. Fox News isn’t new and the religious right isn’t new, but I think they’ve reached new heights on places like Facebook where people are inundated with extremist propaganda that’s posted as news. And it’s targeted in ways that tv ads aren’t, only certain people see certain ads which amplifies the insularity and strategically, conservative fake news mills are much more prolific than leftist ones.\n\nFrom my own conservative in-laws, I’ve seen a lot of posts being shared about ‘legalized infanticide’ which is an extreme way of talking about abortion policy but it’s a hard line galvanizing issue for them. In that sense, I think the conversation they’re engaging in is totally based on political views that have existed for decades but are now way more insular and targeted than anything that’s existed before the last few years.", "timestamp": 1574797860 } ]	[ "f8t4z8w", "f8t6njy", "f8t72op" ]	[ "f8t5hvc", "f8t6836", "f8t84kn" ]
CMV: there are possible utopias Sorry for vague title but it's commonly accepted that utopias can never be a reality and they become dystopias. However I don't think that is entirely true. I can think of two types of utopias that actually seem to be perfect. 1. Removing negative emotion: If the parts of the brain responsible for receiving negative things and having negative emotions were removed or shutdown or something and the only emotion we could feel was happiness nothing would be "bad." By all means negative things could happen like an animal attack or falling and breaking a bone but we wouldn't perceive it as bad. Sure since pain allows us to tell if something is wrong a lot of people would die from natural things but since murder and human on human deaths would be eliminated the population would stay about the same. And to lead everyone there would be a big set of rules like "anyone born within these land boundaries will do farming." Here is the kicker I think everyone would listen to the rules because they lack the ability to think of anything bad happening as a result and therefore have no reason not to. 2. everyone in a hologram or illusion or something like that, Everyone would basically be put into a permasleep where they are dreaming but don't even realize it. Their reality would be whatever they want most, sort of like when you have a dream where everything is great but without waking up and realizing this aren't actually that great. To make this simple Just put (1) or (2) before your message to describe what utopia you are arguing against. If you disagree with both...too bad, only do one at a time I will not reply to posts that have both (1) and (2) in them.	Both of these sound like dystopias. I would be horrified to live in either --- but you couldn't, in one you lack the ability to be horrified and the other you wouldn't even realize you were in one to begin with and that's the beauty of it. --- Hey, there's a book that pretty much describes your exact situation called "The Giver". It's a classic and I really recommend you reading it. It might shed some insight. --- I have read the book, while it is close to what I envision it isn't quite right. They get rid of all emotion including happiness, My utopia is a happy one not a emotionless one. --- But if they don't know about happiness why would it matter? That's the entire point isn't it, if they don't know about free will or whatever it doesn't matter?	Let's start here. Utopias aren't possible because that's what utopia means. They are a mix of eutopia and outopia, meaning 'good place' and 'no place' respectively. But okay, moving on and semantics aside, the real reason a perfect society isn't possible is that perfection isn't possible. The two options you presented might be better than today (I don't think either sound appealing but that's personal preference), but they aren't perfect. People will still have gripes and there will still be room for optimization on a mechanical level. More importantly than that, let's actually delve into what you're arguing against rather than what you're arguing for, and that is against the idea that the current forms of technosocial progress are necessarily leading to dystopia. I think you're right here, while we are heading towards a Black Mirror meets Brave New World meets Ex Machina meets The Matrix style of technosocial dynamic, the outcome isn't necessarily bad. People are just generally defeatists about things they don't want to seriously spend time considering. Here is how I think you should change your view: you need to fully realize and embrace that any static society is destined for death. Both options you presented will crash and burn probably within 30 years or less because neither will adapt to changes. You think we have it bad now with climate change? Imagine a population of happy, smiling cows being asked to care enough to change their day-to-day routine. Imagine if their perfect management servers are making slight calculation errors (because they're using floating point numbers like the scrubs that they are), and those errors stack up over time with no one to fix them or even notice they've gone wrong. You need to embrace change and the growing pains that come with it. Don't look for perfection because you'll never find it. It doesn't exist. Just look for the next best thing and achieve it, then rinse and repeat. If anything, that's the closest thing we can have to a utopia. A society that is fully committed to improving living conditions and solving whatever challenges it faces. --- !delta your right utopia isn't the right term to describe it, simply put the societies listed below are much better than our current one. --- Thanks for the delta. You do still need a clause in there for capacity to dramatically change in there. Again, any society that can't or won't change will die eventually, and usually sooner rather than later. --- better to feel nothing but happiness and die sooner than too survive longer but be miserable. --- This brings to mind yin and yang, order and chaos. How can you experience or comprehend what is happiness without knowing the opposite? If all you have is a general happiness, how does it not become mundane?	e237bh	CMV: there are possible utopias	Sorry for vague title but it's commonly accepted that utopias can never be a reality and they become dystopias. However I don't think that is entirely true. I can think of two types of utopias that actually seem to be perfect. 1. Removing negative emotion: If the parts of the brain responsible for receiving negative things and having negative emotions were removed or shutdown or something and the only emotion we could feel was happiness nothing would be "bad." By all means negative things could happen like an animal attack or falling and breaking a bone but we wouldn't perceive it as bad. Sure since pain allows us to tell if something is wrong a lot of people would die from natural things but since murder and human on human deaths would be eliminated the population would stay about the same. And to lead everyone there would be a big set of rules like "anyone born within these land boundaries will do farming." Here is the kicker I think everyone would listen to the rules because they lack the ability to think of anything bad happening as a result and therefore have no reason not to. 2. everyone in a hologram or illusion or something like that, Everyone would basically be put into a permasleep where they are dreaming but don't even realize it. Their reality would be whatever they want most, sort of like when you have a dream where everything is great but without waking up and realizing this aren't actually that great. To make this simple Just put (1) or (2) before your message to describe what utopia you are arguing against. If you disagree with both...too bad, only do one at a time I will not reply to posts that have both (1) and (2) in them.	romancandle4	5	5	[ { "author": "woodelf", "id": "f8t78tx", "score": 7, "text": "Both of these sound like dystopias. I would be horrified to live in either", "timestamp": 1574797312 }, { "author": "romancandle4", "id": "f8t7eid", "score": 0, "text": "but you couldn't, in one you lack the ability to be horrified and the other you wouldn't even realize you were in one to begin with and that's the beauty of it.", "timestamp": 1574797411 }, { "author": "Azkorath", "id": "f8t9re1", "score": 2, "text": "Hey, there's a book that pretty much describes your exact situation called \"The Giver\". It's a classic and I really recommend you reading it. It might shed some insight.", "timestamp": 1574798863 }, { "author": "romancandle4", "id": "f8tazci", "score": 1, "text": "I have read the book, while it is close to what I envision it isn't quite right. They get rid of all emotion including happiness, My utopia is a happy one not a emotionless one.", "timestamp": 1574799604 }, { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "f8tcgzc", "score": 2, "text": "But if they don't know about happiness why would it matter? That's the entire point isn't it, if they don't know about free will or whatever it doesn't matter?", "timestamp": 1574800496 } ]	[ { "author": "MxedMssge", "id": "f8t8g8h", "score": 10, "text": "Let's start here. Utopias aren't possible because that's what utopia means. They are a mix of eutopia and outopia, meaning 'good place' and 'no place' respectively. \n\nBut okay, moving on and semantics aside, the real reason a perfect society isn't possible is that perfection isn't possible. The two options you presented might be better than today (I don't think either sound appealing but that's personal preference), but they aren't perfect. People will still have gripes and there will still be room for optimization on a mechanical level. \n\nMore importantly than that, let's actually delve into what you're arguing against rather than what you're arguing for, and that is against the idea that the current forms of technosocial progress are necessarily leading to dystopia. I think you're right here, while we are heading towards a Black Mirror meets Brave New World meets Ex Machina meets The Matrix style of technosocial dynamic, the outcome isn't necessarily bad. People are just generally defeatists about things they don't want to seriously spend time considering. \n\nHere is how I think you should change your view: you need to fully realize and embrace that any static society is destined for death. Both options you presented will crash and burn probably within 30 years or less because neither will adapt to changes. You think we have it bad now with climate change? Imagine a population of happy, smiling cows being asked to care enough to change their day-to-day routine. Imagine if their perfect management servers are making slight calculation errors (because they're using floating point numbers like the scrubs that they are), and those errors stack up over time with no one to fix them or even notice they've gone wrong. \nYou need to embrace change and the growing pains that come with it. Don't look for perfection because you'll never find it. It doesn't exist. Just look for the next best thing and achieve it, then rinse and repeat. If anything, that's the closest thing we can have to a utopia. A society that is fully committed to improving living conditions and solving whatever challenges it faces.", "timestamp": 1574798059 }, { "author": "romancandle4", "id": "f8t946y", "score": 3, "text": "!delta your right utopia isn't the right term to describe it, simply put the societies listed below are much better than our current one.", "timestamp": 1574798467 }, { "author": "MxedMssge", "id": "f8t981y", "score": 2, "text": "Thanks for the delta. You do still need a clause in there for capacity to dramatically change in there. Again, any society that can't or won't change will die eventually, and usually sooner rather than later.", "timestamp": 1574798534 }, { "author": "romancandle4", "id": "f8t9ww7", "score": 1, "text": "better to feel nothing but happiness and die sooner than too survive longer but be miserable.", "timestamp": 1574798955 }, { "author": "Wohstihseht", "id": "f8tj6b5", "score": 1, "text": "This brings to mind yin and yang, order and chaos. How can you experience or comprehend what is happiness without knowing the opposite? If all you have is a general happiness, how does it not become mundane?", "timestamp": 1574804500 } ]	[ "f8t78tx", "f8t7eid", "f8t9re1", "f8tazci", "f8tcgzc" ]	[ "f8t8g8h", "f8t946y", "f8t981y", "f8t9ww7", "f8tj6b5" ]
CMV: The use of the word "trap" isn't used as a derogatory term for transfolk as often as people like to think, and I think the word means something in an entirely different context when most people use it in the mainstream. Warning: I am a straight man with ingrained societal beliefs I am trying to work out of, so if I come off as a bit ignorant, sorry. This was brought about by Contrapoints video on traps. First off, I want to say that I enjoy her videos a LOT. I love her verbose dialogue, open-mindedness in all issues, unique outlooks as a trans-woman, and of course,being intelligent and funny as fuck. I was punted her way by Super Eyepatch Wolf on YT, another great analytical content creator (mostly on anime). She actually made me understand the hellhole incels dug themselves into,and made me understand them more past blind hatred. But (yeah, I did the obvious but transition)- In the video about traps, there was a lot of focus on trans women, and how the word affects them. I understand the negative connotations of the word, and am appalled at the horrible things trans people go through. However,I was a bit disappointed by the lack of focus on the word itself and the context of how it is used, and while the video being an in-depth talk about the nature of sexuality is awesome, I feel it left the non-trans audience unfairly saddled with guilt for using the word "trap", when really, a majority of them mean nothing by it. Because I honestly believe "trap" in the sense that most people use it, is NOT in reference to trans-women. I am having a hard time separating how the trans community views the word trap and how the general non-trans/non-incel public see the word, specifically in this case, the general anime audience who uses it the most. The biggest difference in the understanding of the word, at least in regards to the general non-incel or non-trans internet community at large, is that "trap" has by-and-large been used in reference for androgynous males who act effeminately (straight,gay or bi) who are doing it with the express purpose of hiding their male side to "trick" people into believing they are women, though never out of malice (unless it is in some extremely rare cases, but that's another story). Sometimes it's just that they look and ACT like a typical girl despite being a straight male,in which case trap is super wrong,but that's the trouble with a catch-all word like trap. Maybe it's just the company I keep, but I've never come across people who used the word trap in the context of a trans woman. For example, in anime, the most popular origin of the word, I'm actually surprised at how a lot of people have the wherewithal to not call trans characters traps, and any who do are quickly reprimanded. However, anytime a cross-dressing character who don't particularly believe themselves to be women, but enjoy the the aesthetic of femininity without the need to change their born sexuality, or they really do just naturally look like a lady, they are called traps as a catch-all term. As an example, the character Lily from Zombieland Saga is a trans girl, and for the most part, people in the west are very supportive and know better than to call her a trap because she isn't "tricking" anybody, she's born that way and people respect that. Transfolk by definition CAN'T be traps because they aren't trying to trick you into believing they are girls,because they ARE girls. Contrast, Hideri from Blend S (Surprise!), is shown to clearly use male and female pronouns for funsies,but doesn't really identify as a woman, and consciously confuses people who try go put him into a box. If he identifies as anything, it would be cute. I believe calling him a trap is not a deragatory term, and I'll be talking about why. I do understand the negative connotations that the word has,but I also want to defend the ignorant mainsteam users of the word (myself included) because "trap" doesn't really mean what they think it means. The word they're looking for is the Japanese word "Otokonoko", or "male-girl". It's what the Japanese use in their country to refer to androgynous males, and unfortunately, it hasn't caught on, and instead trap has become the catch-all term to describe it. Alternatively,it could also be the surprisingly rarely used word tomgirl, in which a biologically identifying male has a lot of typically feminine qualities. I prefer using Otokonoko or tomgirl myself now instead of trap, but I just wanted to defend the people (and partly myself back then) who do use it. I'm also not saying the word has never been used negatively,it definitely has been by a lot of alt-right dudes, but the majority of the time, I think people are just being ignorant because let's face it, it's the word that that's there. Tomgirls and otonoko might be more accurate,but it didn't reach that same level of cultural significance that traps did,and so I cannot rightly FULLY blame people who are unaware of the term's other meaning in incel and trans communities. So finally, on the question itself, are traps gay, I actually don't know for sure and don't care. In the context of how the non-incel/non-trans community view it, it's debatable because people have so many differing beliefs on what defines one's sexuality. Partaking in the debate is pointless, because so many people have different understandings of the situation. But, I agree that, if we use the definition of trap as a catch-all term that can ALSO mean for trans people (which I really don't because it's not supposed to be for them unless you're an asshole), then it is unequivocally straight to like a trans-woman. Thing is though, I've shared my opinion and have basically had my opinion null because I'm a straight man, but I really want to hear a logical answer besides "you could never possibly know". Well, I would like an idea, at the very least. Edit: Lots of differing viewpoints, and I need some time to process them. So far though, I still stand by my points. Might change if somebody brings up a strong argument. Edit 2: So far, I notice there is a huge cultural gap between the US (Contra's audience) and my own (predominantly Asian). This is leading to a lot of "Well, in my x, it's like y" stuff happening.	I don't disagree with the distinction you set up, but I think you have the demographics backwards. In the US, the number of anime lovers who use 'trap' the way you're saying is pretty small, even if you're personally mostly exposed to people who love anime. On the other hand, /r/traps is about trans women, and that's how the term is used on most porn sites and in a variety of US movies and TV shows (mostly from awhile ago, but still). Although I agree that Contrapoints video does not answer the question with regards to people using the term in the traditional old-school anime way, I think you're very wrong that 'most people' use the term that way. --- Oh, I forgot to mention I guess, I AM from Asia, specifically a country that is very in much anime fever. Trap isn't used with a negative connotation here, as far as I've seen, but since most groups I'm in are predominantly dominated by Americans and EU peeps, I may have assumed that too. Oh believe me, there ARE some disgusting words for LGBT people here,but trap isn't one of em, at least. --- Ok then, I think Contrapoints is very clearly talking to a US audience primarily (most of her political videos only talk about US politics and political groups for instance). I'm pretty sure that the usage in the US mostly lines up with how she describes it, I can't say anything about Europe or about expats in Asia. --- Oh, and on r/traps, I REALLY don't like that they group transwomen into the mix, ~~they seem to not view then negatively at all either, at least.~~ Yeah,no, nevermind, after browsing a bit, they probably do see them as fetish fuel. That's unfortunate. Edit: edited, I rethought about it. --- I'm kind of confused as to what you want changed about your view and why at this point. Maybe you need to edit your OP to be more specific otherwise people will have to chase a moving dot. It seems your rebuttal of Natalie's discussion is that this is not how you individually experience the word and therefore she's wrong. What necessarily makes your experience with the word the overriding correct interpretation when you just said you are experiencing it in a different setting/culture and a different context? Why does that make the derogatory connotations of "trap" wrong in how she explains it? Because ["Are Traps Gay"](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trap) has a specific history in the US and other English speaking countries. Are you trying to say how we experience the word and how we use it is wrong because your culture/community uses it differently? I actually don't quite follow that reasoning. Perhaps your culture does use the word differently but that doesn't change how it's used here and the overriding transphobic notions wrapped up in it. Japan has a different context for blackface than the US but that doesn't mean blackface in the US isn't considered offensive or historically wrapped up in fraught notions of racism. A lot of Japanese people don't see blackface as offensive and don't necessarily even understand why it is offensive to black people in the US. Does that make the US wrong here too? It seems to me you're kind of saying that cultural ignorance be tolerated instead of taking the step forward in understanding why someone is rightfully offended. If you didn't realize the complete context of the word and don't acknowledge the historical facts around it what is the case for the idea that a non-transgender community gets to decide on words to describe transgender people? I don't know if "trap" is translated differently in your country's language but the English slang use of the term in English speaking countries has been and continues to be used against transgender women in English speaking countries in exactly the way Natalie describes. That's just historical fact like how blackface has been used as a derogatory performance of "blackness."	> However, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of focus on the word itself and the context of how it is used It's absolutely discussed in the video, what're you talking about? You just have a single context that wasn't discussed that I'd disagree is an actual context. >Because I honestly believe "trap" in the sense that most people use it, is NOT in reference to trans-women. Sorry, how could it mean anything other than a woman with a penis? > "trap" has by-and-large been used in reference for androgynous males who act effeminately (straight,gay or bi) who are doing it with the express purpose of hiding their male side to "trick" people into believing they are women You use this without any examples... When is it EVER a man trying to INTENTIONALLY trick other people? > and for the most part, people in the west are very supportive and know better than to call her a trap Yeah that's an opinion that I disagree with and absolutely not a fact. >and people respect that And that too. Edit: more content --- >Sorry, how could it mean anything other than a woman with a penis? It can also refer to a man who identifies as a man who has a penis intentionally disguising himself as a woman for the nefarious person of tricking straight men Into sexual contact. It's probably a pretty rare occurrence, but thats why it's called a "trap" in the first place. --- You use this without any examples... When is it EVER a man trying to INTENTIONALLY trick other people? I don't know a single example of when trap is used in that context. --- I did point it out in the post. Hideri from Blend S, albeit a fictional character, is still representative of what most people think when you use trap. People call the e-sports player and crossplayer Sneaky a trap (who is straight and has a girlfriend as far as I know) is called a trap for being a convincing girl. --- Apologies, I missed that. Okay so you have two rare examples, which are from 2013 or sooner. Yet you'd claim that's the MAINSTREAM use of the term when it was coined far before then. edit: >Alternatively,it could also be the surprisingly rarely used word tomgirl, in which a biologically identifying male has a lot of typically feminine qualities. You added this in - this isn't true. It absolutely isn't a substitution for tomgirl, which is LESS rarely used than "trap"	b3qss7	CMV: The use of the word "trap" isn't used as a derogatory term for transfolk as often as people like to think, and I think the word means something in an entirely different context when most people use it in the mainstream.	Warning: I am a straight man with ingrained societal beliefs I am trying to work out of, so if I come off as a bit ignorant, sorry. This was brought about by Contrapoints video on traps. First off, I want to say that I enjoy her videos a LOT. I love her verbose dialogue, open-mindedness in all issues, unique outlooks as a trans-woman, and of course,being intelligent and funny as fuck. I was punted her way by Super Eyepatch Wolf on YT, another great analytical content creator (mostly on anime). She actually made me understand the hellhole incels dug themselves into,and made me understand them more past blind hatred. But (yeah, I did the obvious but transition)- In the video about traps, there was a lot of focus on trans women, and how the word affects them. I understand the negative connotations of the word, and am appalled at the horrible things trans people go through. However,I was a bit disappointed by the lack of focus on the word itself and the context of how it is used, and while the video being an in-depth talk about the nature of sexuality is awesome, I feel it left the non-trans audience unfairly saddled with guilt for using the word "trap", when really, a majority of them mean nothing by it. Because I honestly believe "trap" in the sense that most people use it, is NOT in reference to trans-women. I am having a hard time separating how the trans community views the word trap and how the general non-trans/non-incel public see the word, specifically in this case, the general anime audience who uses it the most. The biggest difference in the understanding of the word, at least in regards to the general non-incel or non-trans internet community at large, is that "trap" has by-and-large been used in reference for androgynous males who act effeminately (straight,gay or bi) who are doing it with the express purpose of hiding their male side to "trick" people into believing they are women, though never out of malice (unless it is in some extremely rare cases, but that's another story). Sometimes it's just that they look and ACT like a typical girl despite being a straight male,in which case trap is super wrong,but that's the trouble with a catch-all word like trap. Maybe it's just the company I keep, but I've never come across people who used the word trap in the context of a trans woman. For example, in anime, the most popular origin of the word, I'm actually surprised at how a lot of people have the wherewithal to not call trans characters traps, and any who do are quickly reprimanded. However, anytime a cross-dressing character who don't particularly believe themselves to be women, but enjoy the the aesthetic of femininity without the need to change their born sexuality, or they really do just naturally look like a lady, they are called traps as a catch-all term. As an example, the character Lily from Zombieland Saga is a trans girl, and for the most part, people in the west are very supportive and know better than to call her a trap because she isn't "tricking" anybody, she's born that way and people respect that. Transfolk by definition CAN'T be traps because they aren't trying to trick you into believing they are girls,because they ARE girls. Contrast, Hideri from Blend S (Surprise!), is shown to clearly use male and female pronouns for funsies,but doesn't really identify as a woman, and consciously confuses people who try go put him into a box. If he identifies as anything, it would be cute. I believe calling him a trap is not a deragatory term, and I'll be talking about why. I do understand the negative connotations that the word has,but I also want to defend the ignorant mainsteam users of the word (myself included) because "trap" doesn't really mean what they think it means. The word they're looking for is the Japanese word "Otokonoko", or "male-girl". It's what the Japanese use in their country to refer to androgynous males, and unfortunately, it hasn't caught on, and instead trap has become the catch-all term to describe it. Alternatively,it could also be the surprisingly rarely used word tomgirl, in which a biologically identifying male has a lot of typically feminine qualities. I prefer using Otokonoko or tomgirl myself now instead of trap, but I just wanted to defend the people (and partly myself back then) who do use it. I'm also not saying the word has never been used negatively,it definitely has been by a lot of alt-right dudes, but the majority of the time, I think people are just being ignorant because let's face it, it's the word that that's there. Tomgirls and otonoko might be more accurate,but it didn't reach that same level of cultural significance that traps did,and so I cannot rightly FULLY blame people who are unaware of the term's other meaning in incel and trans communities. So finally, on the question itself, are traps gay, I actually don't know for sure and don't care. In the context of how the non-incel/non-trans community view it, it's debatable because people have so many differing beliefs on what defines one's sexuality. Partaking in the debate is pointless, because so many people have different understandings of the situation. But, I agree that, if we use the definition of trap as a catch-all term that can ALSO mean for trans people (which I really don't because it's not supposed to be for them unless you're an asshole), then it is unequivocally straight to like a trans-woman. Thing is though, I've shared my opinion and have basically had my opinion null because I'm a straight man, but I really want to hear a logical answer besides "you could never possibly know". Well, I would like an idea, at the very least. Edit: Lots of differing viewpoints, and I need some time to process them. So far though, I still stand by my points. Might change if somebody brings up a strong argument. Edit 2: So far, I notice there is a huge cultural gap between the US (Contra's audience) and my own (predominantly Asian). This is leading to a lot of "Well, in my x, it's like y" stuff happening.	CarnivorousL	5	5	[ { "author": "darwin2500", "id": "ej1gn3w", "score": 13, "text": "I don't disagree with the distinction you set up, but I think you have the demographics backwards. In the US, the number of anime lovers who use 'trap' the way you're saying is pretty small, even if you're personally mostly exposed to people who love anime. \n\nOn the other hand, /r/traps is about trans women, and that's how the term is used on most porn sites and in a variety of US movies and TV shows (mostly from awhile ago, but still).\n\nAlthough I agree that Contrapoints video does not answer the question with regards to people using the term in the traditional old-school anime way, I think you're very wrong that 'most people' use the term that way.", "timestamp": 1553178512 }, { "author": "CarnivorousL", "id": "ej1gx4h", "score": 3, "text": "Oh, I forgot to mention I guess, I AM from Asia, specifically a country that is very in much anime fever. Trap isn't used with a negative connotation here, as far as I've seen, but since most groups I'm in are predominantly dominated by Americans and EU peeps, I may have assumed that too.\n\nOh believe me, there ARE some disgusting words for LGBT people here,but trap isn't one of em, at least. ", "timestamp": 1553178690 }, { "author": "darwin2500", "id": "ej1h4w5", "score": 6, "text": "Ok then, I think Contrapoints is very clearly talking to a US audience primarily (most of her political videos only talk about US politics and political groups for instance). I'm pretty sure that the usage in the US mostly lines up with how she describes it, I can't say anything about Europe or about expats in Asia.", "timestamp": 1553178831 }, { "author": "CarnivorousL", "id": "ej1iiyp", "score": 1, "text": "Oh, and on r/traps, I REALLY don't like that they group transwomen into the mix, ~~they seem to not view then negatively at all either, at least.~~\n\nYeah,no, nevermind, after browsing a bit, they probably do see them as fetish fuel. That's unfortunate.\n\nEdit: edited, I rethought about it.", "timestamp": 1553179714 }, { "author": "videoninja", "id": "ej1lznq", "score": 5, "text": "I'm kind of confused as to what you want changed about your view and why at this point. Maybe you need to edit your OP to be more specific otherwise people will have to chase a moving dot. \n\nIt seems your rebuttal of Natalie's discussion is that this is not how you individually experience the word and therefore she's wrong. What necessarily makes your experience with the word the overriding correct interpretation when you just said you are experiencing it in a different setting/culture and a different context? Why does that make the derogatory connotations of \"trap\" wrong in how she explains it? \n\nBecause [\"Are Traps Gay\"](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trap) has a specific history in the US and other English speaking countries. Are you trying to say how we experience the word and how we use it is wrong because your culture/community uses it differently? I actually don't quite follow that reasoning. Perhaps your culture does use the word differently but that doesn't change how it's used here and the overriding transphobic notions wrapped up in it. \n\nJapan has a different context for blackface than the US but that doesn't mean blackface in the US isn't considered offensive or historically wrapped up in fraught notions of racism. A lot of Japanese people don't see blackface as offensive and don't necessarily even understand why it is offensive to black people in the US. Does that make the US wrong here too? \n\nIt seems to me you're kind of saying that cultural ignorance be tolerated instead of taking the step forward in understanding why someone is rightfully offended. If you didn't realize the complete context of the word and don't acknowledge the historical facts around it what is the case for the idea that a non-transgender community gets to decide on words to describe transgender people? \n\nI don't know if \"trap\" is translated differently in your country's language but the English slang use of the term in English speaking countries has been and continues to be used against transgender women in English speaking countries in exactly the way Natalie describes. That's just historical fact like how blackface has been used as a derogatory performance of \"blackness.\" \n", "timestamp": 1553181873 } ]	[ { "author": "delusions-", "id": "ej1f8fe", "score": 1, "text": "> However, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of focus on the word itself and the context of how it is used\n\nIt's absolutely discussed in the video, what're you talking about? You just have a single context that wasn't discussed that I'd disagree is an actual context.\n\n>Because I honestly believe \"trap\" in the sense that most people use it, is NOT in reference to trans-women.\n\n\n\nSorry, how could it mean anything other than a woman with a penis?\n\n> \"trap\" has by-and-large been used in reference for androgynous males who act effeminately (straight,gay or bi) who are doing it with the express purpose of hiding their male side to \"trick\" people into believing they are women\n\nYou use this without any examples... When is it EVER a man trying to INTENTIONALLY trick other people?\n\n> and for the most part, people in the west are very supportive and know better than to call her a trap\n\n\n\nYeah that's an opinion that I disagree with and absolutely not a fact.\n\n>and people respect that\n\nAnd that too.\n\n\nEdit: more content", "timestamp": 1553177574 }, { "author": "onetwo3four5", "id": "ej1fhh5", "score": 2, "text": ">Sorry, how could it mean anything other than a woman with a penis?\n\nIt can also refer to a man who identifies as a man who has a penis intentionally disguising himself as a woman for the nefarious person of tricking straight men Into sexual contact. It's probably a pretty rare occurrence, but thats why it's called a \"trap\" in the first place. ", "timestamp": 1553177741 }, { "author": "delusions-", "id": "ej1fior", "score": 2, "text": "You use this without any examples... When is it EVER a man trying to INTENTIONALLY trick other people?\n\n\nI don't know a single example of when trap is used in that context.", "timestamp": 1553177765 }, { "author": "CarnivorousL", "id": "ej1ft8s", "score": 1, "text": "I did point it out in the post. Hideri from Blend S, albeit a fictional character, is still representative of what most people think when you use trap. People call the e-sports player and crossplayer Sneaky a trap (who is straight and has a girlfriend as far as I know) is called a trap for being a convincing girl.", "timestamp": 1553177963 }, { "author": "delusions-", "id": "ej1g3nv", "score": 1, "text": "Apologies, I missed that.\n\nOkay so you have two rare examples, which are from 2013 or sooner.\n\nYet you'd claim that's the MAINSTREAM use of the term when it was coined far before then.\n\nedit:\n\n>Alternatively,it could also be the surprisingly rarely used word tomgirl, in which a biologically identifying male has a lot of typically feminine qualities.\n\nYou added this in - this isn't true. It absolutely isn't a substitution for tomgirl, which is LESS rarely used than \"trap\"", "timestamp": 1553178154 } ]	[ "ej1gn3w", "ej1gx4h", "ej1h4w5", "ej1iiyp", "ej1lznq" ]	[ "ej1f8fe", "ej1fhh5", "ej1fior", "ej1ft8s", "ej1g3nv" ]
CMV: We don’t have free will, alternate universes can’t exist, and fate could be real No, this isn’t multiple CMVs in one because my reasoning is the same for each of these, convince me my reason for one of them is wrong and you’ve convinced me the others are too. So what is the reason behind these three statements? I’ll explain, but it'll take a while.   Free Will & The Big Idea Let’s say that somewhere in this world, a man named Timothy just made a choice between buying a hotdog or a taco to eat, deciding to choose the taco. Now let’s put that on pause and rewind back into Tim’s past where we can see some of the factors that influenced him to make his decision in the present: * Timothy and his best friend, Johnothy used to eat at Taco Bell every Sunday, and Tim enjoyed these days a lot. But then, in a sad turn of events, John gets a new girlfriend who converts him to vegetarianism. Tim’s decision is partially influenced by wanting to honor his friend’s loss * Tim’s cousin choked on a hot dog and died. Tim’s decision is partially influenced by the fear of him falling to the same fate as his cousin * Tim has a hard time eating hot dogs without smearing mustard and ketchup all over his t-shirt, but can magically eat tacos without spilling a crumb. Tim’s decision is partially based on the convenience of tacos * The vendor suggests the hotdogs, but Tim wants to spite the vendor for wearing the same shirt as him. Tim’s choice is partially influenced by his hate for the vendor * He just feels like eating tacos because of subconscious factors influencing his brain(I’m not sure if that's a thing, I’m not a science guy, I’m more of a ~~bullshit science~~ philosophy guy) Tim’s decision is partially affected by his subconscious Let’s now check out the point right before Tim makes his decision. And finally, here’s where my claim comes in. No matter how much we rewind and play his choice over, he will always choose the taco. Why? Because of all the factors I listed above. He has reasons to choose the taco. In my view, he is not making that choice, the factors in his mind are. And that’s why free will can’t be a thing, because everything we ever do, every action we take, is made by past and present factors influencing our minds to make the certain decision that would make us happy.   Alternate Universes The type of alternate universe I’ll be talking about is potential variants of our own such as one where a choice is made differently, so according to this specific multiverse theory, another universe exists where Tim chose the hotdog. To disprove this, we need to go back to the factors. They are the reasons Tim chooses the taco, and they are stronger than any reasons he has for choosing the hotdog. Unless the factors were changed, it would be impossible for him to make another decision. So there cannot be any alternate universes where everything is the same aside from him choosing the hotdog. He has no reason to choose the hotdog over the tacos. But what about universes that are somewhat similar, with enough factors changed so that Tim chooses the hotdog? Alright, let’s try that out. For this example, honoring Johnothy is the biggest reason Tim has for choosing the taco and he would choose the hot dog if it weren’t for upholding John’s honor. So our goal is to change that factor so that John never became vegetarian and Tim has become tired of eating at Taco Bell every week. Since John’s girlfriend is basically the remote control stopping him from getting those meaty tacos in his mouth, an easy way to change this factor would be to make sure John never got with her. But wait, John had his own factors for choosing to get with that girl. Here’s the main one: * Turns out the girl uses all her free time to help an injured animal shelter and Johnothy wanted in on all the cute little animals So now we need to change John’s factor for getting with his girlfriend(let’s call her Dorothy) so that we can change Timothy’s factor of wanting to honor John. But(You probably saw this coming) then Dorothy has her own reasons for why she joined the animal shelter. And here’s the one that could tip the scales: * When Dorothy was a kid, she had a pet tortoise named Frank, but because of her negligence, Frank stubbed his toe. Saddened by her misdeeds, an older Dorothy was influenced by this moment to join the shelter Alright, now we have to change this factor, but let’s make a series of fast forwarded jumps through this, since I feel like you’re getting bored. We can either make Frank not have stubbed his toe, have Dorothy never adopt Frank, or we can make Dorothy never have existed. But what is the factor behind Dorothy’s existence? Her parents wanting a kid. And the factor for her parents wanting a kid would be natural human desire to reproduce and take care of their children. Then the factor for that would be natural human instincts telling us to survive. But why do we want to survive? I have no idea, but another factor would be just because we are alive and our brains are telling us to. The factor for that would be us being created, and now we’re at whatever point where the Universe started its expansion, whenever god created it, or whatever other possibility for the first moment in history. This means that if you try to remove any factor from Timothy’s decision, the factors of the factors of the factors will wind all the way back to the beginning. It also means the only potential “alternate” universe that could exist would be one where the universe expanded differently or god created the universe differently etc, and everything down to the cell and out to physics is absolutely different. But we would also need to know the reason or the factor behind any of these moments to prove or disprove that. And that’s why alternate universes can’t be a thing.   Fate Now for fate. I’m not talking about prophetic futures where everything is already set into stone, more so that, because of what happened in the past, we have to do a certain thing in the present as a reaction, meaning the future, or at least the close future, has been settled. Again, we’ll start where we ended. But if we watch all of these factors in reverse, from the start of the universe to Tim’s decision we would see that everything that happens after the creation of the world is just a reaction to the creation. History is just a chain of reactions. As I said two blocks up, when something happens that affects us(a factor, could be multiple) we would react in a specific way. And as with the other two topics, the factors cannot be changed and they control you, resulting in the specific action and only that specific action. So, to use the examples again, let’s skip back to Dorothy’s parents. They decided to have Dorothy and take care of her as a reaction to being alive and having those natural instincts. Dorothy reacted to her existence by living, of course, but her life includes that specific moment with Frank, which means it was also a reaction. Joining the animal shelter was a reaction to that, Johnothy getting with her was a reaction to the shelter thing, and finally, Timothy choosing the taco was a reaction to John's sacrifice. This would mean that in the future, Timothy would go on to react to new factors, with each of those factors having their own factors and repeat this over and over like everyone else on the world. It would also mean that theoretically, if we were to somehow know of every potential factor that could be affecting each person in the world, we may be able to predict the future. By knowing which people and factors would cross paths and how every person would react to another factor/situation according to their past factors, we could, through a process of elimination, narrow down possible situations to which situation an individual is most likely to experience and what decision they would most likely make. Fate(at least short term) is real because everything we do has to be a reaction to other factors.   In culmination, life is just a movie that you can feel, seen from multiple viewpoints across a single universe, with each of us characters reacting to our creation by involuntarily writing our own scripts designed to make us as happy as we can possibly be. As much as being right would feel cool, thinking about this doesn't make me feel so happy. This may sound angsty, but I really don't like the idea that we don't have any control, that it's all just happening and I can’t really have any input. It would be a hell of a relief if someone took apart this “factors” thing. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	Actually, it's physically impossible for all 3 to be true. Sorry to go deep so fast here but I'm a physicist. I'll try to keep it light. When you say "alternate universes can't exist," I think of [many worlds interpretation](https://goo.gl/500J9Y) of Quantum mechanics. The thing is, we know some stuff from physics. We know that small things behave in strange unpredictable ways, and we've theorized a handful of interpretations for this knowledge. The only two interpretations that don't violate the math we know are Copenhagen and Many Worlds. Both are scientifically equally valid and distinguishing between them is a philosophical challenge. When you say "alternate universes can't exist," you're making an extraordinary claim about your access to superior knowledge than the last 100 years of scientists and philosophers. In Many Worlds, the chaotic randomness of the wave equations is resolved in that every possible outcome of QFT random events "occurs" but in alternate universes - meaning the world is deterministic like you claim in 1 and 3 but there are alternate universes. In Copenhagen, there anren't multiple universes - but randomness is real. It doesn't get resolved and there is absolutely no information about our fate before the wave function collapses upon observation. You can pick either interpretation, but you can't get all three with either one. --- ∆ Since it’s become clear that I’m wrong. I figured there was no way none of the professionals on this topic wouldn’t have come up with a reason against my claims, but I couldn’t figure out the reason, which was why I made the CMV(Ok, maybe I kinda hoped I hopped upon an undiscovered gold mine, and that’s pretty ignorant.) And I don’t mean to insult your intelligence, but I don’t really understand the randomness thing, would an ELI5 be too much to ask? From what I understand, you’re saying other universes can exist by diverging from truly random events without any reason to result in a specific outcome. Could you explain examples of a random event? I’m really left in the dust in regards to sciences and philosophy, I may not even have a high schooler’s knowledge about these things, but I do enjoy trying. I would love it if you could explain this in more detail. --- The universe is, to all appearances, random at its core. When a molecule gets excited, it will eventually emit a photon - when precisely it emits that photon is random. When a piece of radium sits around it will eventually decay - when precisely it decays is random. The interactions of all particles are random, and they add together to (on the observable macro scale) look like something fairly predictable just as rolling a lot of dice and adding them sums to something fairly predictable, but it's still stochastic. This implies that literally all decisions you make are to some extent stochastic and not fully determined, but it's most clear if you look at decisions you make based on seeing things in low light conditions or based on the readings of geiger counters. Now physicists who hate the idea of randomness at the heart of the universe have an arguably deterministic alternative to the observed randomness: the many worlds hypothesis. This hypothesis says that an excited molecule doesn't randomly emit light at t=0, t=1 planck time constant, t= 3.13478358 planck time constants, or whatever. Rather, it emits light at all the infinite possibilities it could emit light at, and each of those infinite possibilities is a different universe. So from the point of view of one specific universe everything is still random, but in the set of all universes determinism is preserved. In the Many Worlds Hypothesis, there's infinite worlds where you eat the ice cream cone and infinite worlds where you don't. In the Copenhagen ("standard") interpretation of quantum physics, in this world there is a chance you'll eat it and a chance you won't, but it's not literally 100% either way. Of course, none of the above proves or disproves free will, which is a whole different question we don't know how to approach.	If we extend your argument to the very first event -- the beginning of the universe -- the universe would expand as a perfect, featureless sphere after the big bang. No stars, no planets, no life, no humans. It's random fluctuations that give rise to these things. Some people believe that our free will is a manifestation of these fluctuations, while others believe each fluctuation is a fork in the road that creates a parallel universe. --- ∆. I should’ve studied this more before posting and I definitely should’ve factored in randomness. Your comment makes the claim that every factor winds back to the beginning void, but how do these random fluctuations affect us currently. Sorry if it’s a pain to explain, but I’m an amateur to this stuff and an explanation would be nice. The part of your comment I’m most interested in is the “free will is a manifestation of the fluctuations” theory. If you don’t mind explaining, how exactly is that thought to work? --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/merkitt ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/merkitt)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "merkitt" } DB3PARAMSEND)	799jda	CMV: We don’t have free will, alternate universes can’t exist, and fate could be real	No, this isn’t multiple CMVs in one because my reasoning is the same for each of these, convince me my reason for one of them is wrong and you’ve convinced me the others are too. So what is the reason behind these three statements? I’ll explain, but it'll take a while.   Free Will & The Big Idea Let’s say that somewhere in this world, a man named Timothy just made a choice between buying a hotdog or a taco to eat, deciding to choose the taco. Now let’s put that on pause and rewind back into Tim’s past where we can see some of the factors that influenced him to make his decision in the present: * Timothy and his best friend, Johnothy used to eat at Taco Bell every Sunday, and Tim enjoyed these days a lot. But then, in a sad turn of events, John gets a new girlfriend who converts him to vegetarianism. Tim’s decision is partially influenced by wanting to honor his friend’s loss * Tim’s cousin choked on a hot dog and died. Tim’s decision is partially influenced by the fear of him falling to the same fate as his cousin * Tim has a hard time eating hot dogs without smearing mustard and ketchup all over his t-shirt, but can magically eat tacos without spilling a crumb. Tim’s decision is partially based on the convenience of tacos * The vendor suggests the hotdogs, but Tim wants to spite the vendor for wearing the same shirt as him. Tim’s choice is partially influenced by his hate for the vendor * He just feels like eating tacos because of subconscious factors influencing his brain(I’m not sure if that's a thing, I’m not a science guy, I’m more of a ~~bullshit science~~ philosophy guy) Tim’s decision is partially affected by his subconscious Let’s now check out the point right before Tim makes his decision. And finally, here’s where my claim comes in. No matter how much we rewind and play his choice over, he will always choose the taco. Why? Because of all the factors I listed above. He has reasons to choose the taco. In my view, he is not making that choice, the factors in his mind are. And that’s why free will can’t be a thing, because everything we ever do, every action we take, is made by past and present factors influencing our minds to make the certain decision that would make us happy.   Alternate Universes The type of alternate universe I’ll be talking about is potential variants of our own such as one where a choice is made differently, so according to this specific multiverse theory, another universe exists where Tim chose the hotdog. To disprove this, we need to go back to the factors. They are the reasons Tim chooses the taco, and they are stronger than any reasons he has for choosing the hotdog. Unless the factors were changed, it would be impossible for him to make another decision. So there cannot be any alternate universes where everything is the same aside from him choosing the hotdog. He has no reason to choose the hotdog over the tacos. But what about universes that are somewhat similar, with enough factors changed so that Tim chooses the hotdog? Alright, let’s try that out. For this example, honoring Johnothy is the biggest reason Tim has for choosing the taco and he would choose the hot dog if it weren’t for upholding John’s honor. So our goal is to change that factor so that John never became vegetarian and Tim has become tired of eating at Taco Bell every week. Since John’s girlfriend is basically the remote control stopping him from getting those meaty tacos in his mouth, an easy way to change this factor would be to make sure John never got with her. But wait, John had his own factors for choosing to get with that girl. Here’s the main one: * Turns out the girl uses all her free time to help an injured animal shelter and Johnothy wanted in on all the cute little animals So now we need to change John’s factor for getting with his girlfriend(let’s call her Dorothy) so that we can change Timothy’s factor of wanting to honor John. But(You probably saw this coming) then Dorothy has her own reasons for why she joined the animal shelter. And here’s the one that could tip the scales: * When Dorothy was a kid, she had a pet tortoise named Frank, but because of her negligence, Frank stubbed his toe. Saddened by her misdeeds, an older Dorothy was influenced by this moment to join the shelter Alright, now we have to change this factor, but let’s make a series of fast forwarded jumps through this, since I feel like you’re getting bored. We can either make Frank not have stubbed his toe, have Dorothy never adopt Frank, or we can make Dorothy never have existed. But what is the factor behind Dorothy’s existence? Her parents wanting a kid. And the factor for her parents wanting a kid would be natural human desire to reproduce and take care of their children. Then the factor for that would be natural human instincts telling us to survive. But why do we want to survive? I have no idea, but another factor would be just because we are alive and our brains are telling us to. The factor for that would be us being created, and now we’re at whatever point where the Universe started its expansion, whenever god created it, or whatever other possibility for the first moment in history. This means that if you try to remove any factor from Timothy’s decision, the factors of the factors of the factors will wind all the way back to the beginning. It also means the only potential “alternate” universe that could exist would be one where the universe expanded differently or god created the universe differently etc, and everything down to the cell and out to physics is absolutely different. But we would also need to know the reason or the factor behind any of these moments to prove or disprove that. And that’s why alternate universes can’t be a thing.   Fate Now for fate. I’m not talking about prophetic futures where everything is already set into stone, more so that, because of what happened in the past, we have to do a certain thing in the present as a reaction, meaning the future, or at least the close future, has been settled. Again, we’ll start where we ended. But if we watch all of these factors in reverse, from the start of the universe to Tim’s decision we would see that everything that happens after the creation of the world is just a reaction to the creation. History is just a chain of reactions. As I said two blocks up, when something happens that affects us(a factor, could be multiple) we would react in a specific way. And as with the other two topics, the factors cannot be changed and they control you, resulting in the specific action and only that specific action. So, to use the examples again, let’s skip back to Dorothy’s parents. They decided to have Dorothy and take care of her as a reaction to being alive and having those natural instincts. Dorothy reacted to her existence by living, of course, but her life includes that specific moment with Frank, which means it was also a reaction. Joining the animal shelter was a reaction to that, Johnothy getting with her was a reaction to the shelter thing, and finally, Timothy choosing the taco was a reaction to John's sacrifice. This would mean that in the future, Timothy would go on to react to new factors, with each of those factors having their own factors and repeat this over and over like everyone else on the world. It would also mean that theoretically, if we were to somehow know of every potential factor that could be affecting each person in the world, we may be able to predict the future. By knowing which people and factors would cross paths and how every person would react to another factor/situation according to their past factors, we could, through a process of elimination, narrow down possible situations to which situation an individual is most likely to experience and what decision they would most likely make. Fate(at least short term) is real because everything we do has to be a reaction to other factors.   In culmination, life is just a movie that you can feel, seen from multiple viewpoints across a single universe, with each of us characters reacting to our creation by involuntarily writing our own scripts designed to make us as happy as we can possibly be. As much as being right would feel cool, thinking about this doesn't make me feel so happy. This may sound angsty, but I really don't like the idea that we don't have any control, that it's all just happening and I can’t really have any input. It would be a hell of a relief if someone took apart this “factors” thing. _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	YourKingofTheWorld	3	3	[ { "author": "fox-mcleod", "id": "dp097h7", "score": 16, "text": "Actually, it's physically impossible for all 3 to be true. Sorry to go deep so fast here but I'm a physicist. I'll try to keep it light. \n\nWhen you say \"alternate universes can't exist,\" I think of [many worlds interpretation](https://goo.gl/500J9Y) of Quantum mechanics. \n\nThe thing is, we know some stuff from physics. We know that small things behave in strange unpredictable ways, and we've theorized a handful of interpretations for this knowledge. The only two interpretations that don't violate the math we know are Copenhagen and Many Worlds. Both are scientifically equally valid and distinguishing between them is a philosophical challenge. \n\nWhen you say \"alternate universes can't exist,\" you're making an extraordinary claim about your access to superior knowledge than the last 100 years of scientists and philosophers. In Many Worlds, the chaotic randomness of the wave equations is resolved in that every possible outcome of QFT random events \"occurs\" but in alternate universes - meaning the world is deterministic like you claim in 1 and 3 but there are alternate universes. In Copenhagen, there anren't multiple universes - but randomness is real. It doesn't get resolved and there is absolutely no information about our fate before the wave function collapses upon observation. You can pick either interpretation, but you can't get all three with either one. ", "timestamp": 1509194576 }, { "author": "YourKingofTheWorld", "id": "dp09pwa", "score": 8, "text": "∆ Since it’s become clear that I’m wrong.\n\nI figured there was no way none of the professionals on this topic wouldn’t have come up with a reason against my claims, but I couldn’t figure out the reason, which was why I made the CMV(Ok, maybe I kinda hoped I hopped upon an undiscovered gold mine, and that’s pretty ignorant.)\n\nAnd I don’t mean to insult your intelligence, but I don’t really understand the randomness thing, would an ELI5 be too much to ask?\n\nFrom what I understand, you’re saying other universes can exist by diverging from truly random events without any reason to result in a specific outcome. Could you explain examples of a random event?\n\nI’m really left in the dust in regards to sciences and philosophy, I may not even have a high schooler’s knowledge about these things, but I do enjoy trying.\n\nI would love it if you could explain this in more detail.", "timestamp": 1509195638 }, { "author": "GnosticGnome", "id": "dp0a976", "score": 10, "text": "The universe is, to all appearances, random at its core. When a molecule gets excited, it will eventually emit a photon - when precisely it emits that photon is random. When a piece of radium sits around it will eventually decay - when precisely it decays is random. The interactions of all particles are random, and they add together to (on the observable macro scale) look like something fairly predictable just as rolling a lot of dice and adding them sums to something fairly predictable, but it's still stochastic.\n\nThis implies that literally all decisions you make are to some extent stochastic and not fully determined, but it's most clear if you look at decisions you make based on seeing things in low light conditions or based on the readings of geiger counters. \n\nNow physicists who hate the idea of randomness at the heart of the universe have an arguably deterministic alternative to the observed randomness: the many worlds hypothesis. This hypothesis says that an excited molecule doesn't randomly emit light at t=0, t=1 planck time constant, t= 3.13478358 planck time constants, or whatever. Rather, it emits light at all the infinite possibilities it could emit light at, and each of those infinite possibilities is a different universe. So from the point of view of one specific universe everything is still random, but in the set of all universes determinism is preserved. \n\nIn the Many Worlds Hypothesis, there's infinite worlds where you eat the ice cream cone and infinite worlds where you don't. In the Copenhagen (\"standard\") interpretation of quantum physics, in this world there is a chance you'll eat it and a chance you won't, but it's not literally 100% either way.\n\nOf course, none of the above proves or disproves free will, which is a whole different question we don't know how to approach.", "timestamp": 1509196653 } ]	[ { "author": "merkitt", "id": "dp09a1t", "score": 3, "text": "If we extend your argument to the very first event -- the beginning of the universe -- the universe would expand as a perfect, featureless sphere after the big bang. No stars, no planets, no life, no humans. It's random fluctuations that give rise to these things. Some people believe that our free will is a manifestation of these fluctuations, while others believe each fluctuation is a fork in the road that creates a parallel universe.", "timestamp": 1509194728 }, { "author": "YourKingofTheWorld", "id": "dp09z2c", "score": 3, "text": "∆. I should’ve studied this more before posting and I definitely should’ve factored in randomness. Your comment makes the claim that every factor winds back to the beginning void, but how do these random fluctuations affect us currently. Sorry if it’s a pain to explain, but I’m an amateur to this stuff and an explanation would be nice.\n\nThe part of your comment I’m most interested in is the “free will is a manifestation of the fluctuations” theory. If you don’t mind explaining, how exactly is that thought to work?", "timestamp": 1509196138 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dp0a14h", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/merkitt ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/merkitt)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"merkitt\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1509196246 } ]	[ "dp097h7", "dp09pwa", "dp0a976" ]	[ "dp09a1t", "dp09z2c", "dp0a14h" ]
CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Maybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be "harming" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed. --- > Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Especially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/ --- If the "rescuing" you are talking about is buying feeder fish from a pet store, you are contributing to the problem same as everyone else. If you're talking about taking someone's fish that they don't want anymore or something that's different, you're not contributing your money to the fish keeping industry or adding more demand to the market in that case, so if you can give the fish a somewhat better life there really aren't any drawbacks to that. --- Because I do things like pet portrait for animal rescue charities, ect, I am in the unique position to network with business owners that would otherwise throw out sick or overstocked fish, or to put the word out that I will care for rescued fish. I have 0 intention to support that industry. Thank you for your concern though, but the question is, are tanks a better life or part of their traumas in the first place? --- You want to take fish in on a continuing basis? I hope you get large tanks and have boat loads of money for medicine, good filtration, and high quality food. Also get ready for people wanting to unload common plecos and other monster poop machines. You can't just take in fish either, they'll need to be quarantined and you'll need compatible fish. Fyi Bettas and goldfish don't mix. Join us at /r/aquariums for honest and informative discussion, people there will help you figure out a good setup.	Firstly, you're applying the ideas of the stressors of Koi to all fish. That doesn't make sense. Koi are unique animals, as are all animal species. Secondly, I fail to see what your ambition to "rescue" has to do with any of these fish. Have you encountered stranded goldfish that need to be saved from their circumstances? It would seem to me that your concern is not really with "rescue" but with wanting a pet and wanting a pet that you're not making miserable. If you _really_ want to not stress these animals you'll not support the industry that breeds them (or captures them in some cases) and puts them up for sale. --- Koi and feeder goldfish are related, but there isn't really the same community around goldfish as koi, so it gives a unique view. Reguardless my plan would be to build an environment, and this CMV is about if the glass tanks would productive to building a suitable environment, sorry if I didn't articulate that. I would focus on keeping a clean tank, getting plants, etc, and when I find people trying to rehome or need fish rescued, then I have the space for them. I have 0 intention of supporting the breeding industry. --- Yes, related. But different. You can get a common, now-bred-for-a-thousand-generations goldfish that is unstressed in some pretty small spaces. My family growing up did what you are pondering doing now - had few 1000 gallon tanks and 2500 gallon tank (literally a wall). Took in unwanted fish and sometimes sick fish. At the end of the day you will have to be a massive supporter of the pet industry to pull this off. It's not like there are substantial reasons to have tanks, rocks, filters, aerators etc. without the pet industry. --- This has been my first time on the other side of a CMV and thank you for really pushing me with this. That's a really good point, and now you have me back in the position I was before but with a different perspective; it's not like dogs or cats who have a built industry around their care without engaging in their sale. !delta Do you have any recommendations for people who want to care for fish without supporting the pet industry? Or know of any fish networks who could use the amount of $ I would spend on the settup more efficiently than I could alone? --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bguy74 ([100∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bguy74)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "bguy74" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6q4lbh	CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments	Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	broccolicat	5	5	[ { "author": "muyamable", "id": "dkuifp9", "score": 2, "text": "> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them.\n\nWithout being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nMaybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be \"harming\" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed.", "timestamp": 1501258067 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkujra3", "score": 1, "text": "> Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nEspecially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/", "timestamp": 1501259427 }, { "author": "wellwhataboutnow", "id": "dkuldfv", "score": 1, "text": "If the \"rescuing\" you are talking about is buying feeder fish from a pet store, you are contributing to the problem same as everyone else. If you're talking about taking someone's fish that they don't want anymore or something that's different, you're not contributing your money to the fish keeping industry or adding more demand to the market in that case, so if you can give the fish a somewhat better life there really aren't any drawbacks to that.", "timestamp": 1501261103 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkum6p2", "score": 1, "text": "Because I do things like pet portrait for animal rescue charities, ect, I am in the unique position to network with business owners that would otherwise throw out sick or overstocked fish, or to put the word out that I will care for rescued fish. I have 0 intention to support that industry. Thank you for your concern though, but the question is, are tanks a better life or part of their traumas in the first place?", "timestamp": 1501261957 }, { "author": "Frankly_Scarlet", "id": "dkuwak7", "score": 2, "text": "You want to take fish in on a continuing basis? I hope you get large tanks and have boat loads of money for medicine, good filtration, and high quality food. Also get ready for people wanting to unload common plecos and other monster poop machines. You can't just take in fish either, they'll need to be quarantined and you'll need compatible fish. Fyi Bettas and goldfish don't mix. Join us at /r/aquariums for honest and informative discussion, people there will help you figure out a good setup.", "timestamp": 1501272808 } ]	[ { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dkukidp", "score": 6, "text": "Firstly, you're applying the ideas of the stressors of Koi to all fish. That doesn't make sense. Koi are unique animals, as are all animal species.\n\nSecondly, I fail to see what your ambition to \"rescue\" has to do with any of these fish. Have you encountered stranded goldfish that need to be saved from their circumstances? It would seem to me that your concern is not really with \"rescue\" but with wanting a pet and wanting a pet that you're not making miserable. If you _really_ want to not stress these animals you'll not support the industry that breeds them (or captures them in some cases) and puts them up for sale. ", "timestamp": 1501260214 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkun568", "score": 1, "text": "Koi and feeder goldfish are related, but there isn't really the same community around goldfish as koi, so it gives a unique view.\n\nReguardless my plan would be to build an environment, and this CMV is about if the glass tanks would productive to building a suitable environment, sorry if I didn't articulate that. I would focus on keeping a clean tank, getting plants, etc, and when I find people trying to rehome or need fish rescued, then I have the space for them. I have 0 intention of supporting the breeding industry.", "timestamp": 1501262964 }, { "author": "bguy74", "id": "dkuq8f0", "score": 2, "text": "Yes, related. But different. You can get a common, now-bred-for-a-thousand-generations goldfish that is unstressed in some pretty small spaces. \n\nMy family growing up did what you are pondering doing now - had few 1000 gallon tanks and 2500 gallon tank (literally a wall). Took in unwanted fish and sometimes sick fish.\n\nAt the end of the day you will have to be a massive supporter of the pet industry to pull this off. It's not like there are substantial reasons to have tanks, rocks, filters, aerators etc. without the pet industry.", "timestamp": 1501266241 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkuqpet", "score": 1, "text": "This has been my first time on the other side of a CMV and thank you for really pushing me with this.\n\nThat's a really good point, and now you have me back in the position I was before but with a different perspective; it's not like dogs or cats who have a built industry around their care without engaging in their sale. !delta\n\nDo you have any recommendations for people who want to care for fish without supporting the pet industry? Or know of any fish networks who could use the amount of $ I would spend on the settup more efficiently than I could alone?", "timestamp": 1501266739 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dkuqpyu", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/bguy74 ([100∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/bguy74)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"bguy74\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1501266755 } ]	[ "dkuifp9", "dkujra3", "dkuldfv", "dkum6p2", "dkuwak7" ]	[ "dkukidp", "dkun568", "dkuq8f0", "dkuqpet", "dkuqpyu" ]
CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Maybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be "harming" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed. --- > Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Especially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/ --- So the issue is, are you torturing the fish more in a tank, so that it would be better off dead? I'm not sure how one would get at the answer for that, good question. Does it matter if you keep a fish in a tank for "a while" as a transition to your next place which could have a more natural environment?	Nature includes a baseline level of stress. Most animals die of either predation or starvation. Existence under those circumstances is inherently stressful. Even if a tank involved greater stress than a pond (I wouldn't automatically conclude that this is the case, herons fish in my family's pond), that isn't an important concern unless the amount of stress is meaningful. Do you have any reason to conclude that the stress of a tank is a meaningful negative on their qualify of life, or that it pushes them past some baseline at which the stress becomes morally meaningful? --- This is a very compelling argument and thank you; I can't really conclude tanks alone contribute to pushing their stress to beyond being morally meaningful; I can only conclude that fish may recieve more stress due to tanks. I guess if I compare the potential stress of an ideal ethical tank setup with plenty of cover spaces, plants, quiet etc to an ideal outdoor pond setup where predators will always be a factor, saying a tank alone is trauma inducing may be unfair. !delta --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Cadfan17 ([21∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Cadfan17)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART { "comment": "This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this", "issues": {}, "parentUserName": "Cadfan17" } DB3PARAMSEND)	6q4lbh	CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments	Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	broccolicat	3	3	[ { "author": "muyamable", "id": "dkuifp9", "score": 2, "text": "> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them.\n\nWithout being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nMaybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be \"harming\" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed.", "timestamp": 1501258067 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkujra3", "score": 1, "text": "> Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nEspecially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/", "timestamp": 1501259427 }, { "author": "Huntingmoa", "id": "dkul8ee", "score": 2, "text": "So the issue is, are you torturing the fish more in a tank, so that it would be better off dead? \n\nI'm not sure how one would get at the answer for that, good question. Does it matter if you keep a fish in a tank for \"a while\" as a transition to your next place which could have a more natural environment?\n", "timestamp": 1501260961 } ]	[ { "author": "Cadfan17", "id": "dkulzv1", "score": 2, "text": "Nature includes a baseline level of stress. Most animals die of either predation or starvation. Existence under those circumstances is inherently stressful. \n\nEven if a tank involved greater stress than a pond (I wouldn't automatically conclude that this is the case, herons fish in my family's pond), that isn't an important concern unless the amount of stress is meaningful. Do you have any reason to conclude that the stress of a tank is a meaningful negative on their qualify of life, or that it pushes them past some baseline at which the stress becomes morally meaningful? ", "timestamp": 1501261754 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkuo6qs", "score": 1, "text": "This is a very compelling argument and thank you; I can't really conclude tanks alone contribute to pushing their stress to beyond being morally meaningful; I can only conclude that fish may recieve more stress due to tanks. I guess if I compare the potential stress of an ideal ethical tank setup with plenty of cover spaces, plants, quiet etc to an ideal outdoor pond setup where predators will always be a factor, saying a tank alone is trauma inducing may be unfair.\n\n!delta", "timestamp": 1501264062 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "dkuo72o", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Cadfan17 ([21∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Cadfan17)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART\n{\n \"comment\": \"This is hidden text for DB3 to parse. Please contact the author of DB3 if you see this\",\n \"issues\": {},\n \"parentUserName\": \"Cadfan17\"\n}\nDB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1501264071 } ]	[ "dkuifp9", "dkujra3", "dkul8ee" ]	[ "dkulzv1", "dkuo6qs", "dkuo72o" ]
CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Maybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be "harming" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed. --- > Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? Especially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/ --- You are not furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, fish are under no illusions. (Such illusions would require a mind capable of reasoning at an abstract level, rather than sensory/perception). The state of mind of a Koi can be best determined by looking at their current physical health and behaviour (e.g. plucky movements versus lethargic). Koi growth depends on tank/pond size, they limit their size depending on the size of the pond at least (and possibly also on how crowded it is?). Small fry are fine for tanks, and I presume they won't grow very large in a tank. But I imagine they'd start eating each other if it got too crowded or they were of different sizes.	Nature includes a baseline level of stress. Most animals die of either predation or starvation. Existence under those circumstances is inherently stressful. Even if a tank involved greater stress than a pond (I wouldn't automatically conclude that this is the case, herons fish in my family's pond), that isn't an important concern unless the amount of stress is meaningful. Do you have any reason to conclude that the stress of a tank is a meaningful negative on their qualify of life, or that it pushes them past some baseline at which the stress becomes morally meaningful? --- This is a very compelling argument and thank you; I can't really conclude tanks alone contribute to pushing their stress to beyond being morally meaningful; I can only conclude that fish may recieve more stress due to tanks. I guess if I compare the potential stress of an ideal ethical tank setup with plenty of cover spaces, plants, quiet etc to an ideal outdoor pond setup where predators will always be a factor, saying a tank alone is trauma inducing may be unfair. !delta --- Thank you for the delta. If you do get into aquarium care please consider studying up ahead of time so that you understand the systems and animals you're caring for. I asked someone I know who is knowledgeable on the issue and they recommended looking up books by Martin Moe. They say that he is one of the more accessible writers who still covers meaningful information on aquarium care. He might be salt water focused, I'm unsure. But he might be a good start.	6q4lbh	CMV: Keeping fish in glass tanks is selfish, and they really should be kept in ponds or natural environments	Context: I'm a big believe in rescuing animals if you can, but I am in no position to care for most animals right now; especially anyone who would need a constant amount of socialization. My local pet supply store often has large tanks available on discount, and this has got me looking into fish rescuing, specifically feeder goldfish or betas. When I started researching more about fish care, I ran into the Koi community. Because they are almost obsessive on making sure they aren't stressed and are happy in order to have beautiful scales, there is a lot of discussion on what causes these fish stress. Many koi keepers chose to keep them in ponds because; * they can see the endings of their environment as they would in nature. Less scary human noises, and more ability to hide and avoid humans. * water conservation. Ponds just need to be topped off every now and then, and rain also helps. * Local wildlife. Ponds create havens for other local wildlife, like frogs. My biggest concern is stress to the fish; I don't want to keep them in a tank if it means they'll be stressed out and not have a good life. If keeping them in glass tanks are solely to make them more desirable to have because, ooh pretty, then it's not in their best interest. On the other hand, ponds require space that I do not have, and I do not have a garden. Even if I did, they would be unable to be kept in the pond year round do to cold. Why I want my view changed: I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them. (I especially want to hear from fish caretakers on their two cents!) I am not here to discuss whether fish are worth caring about, I am not changing my view on that. :) edit:formatting _____ > This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please *[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules). If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* *[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)*! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to *[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview). Happy CMVing!*	broccolicat	3	3	[ { "author": "muyamable", "id": "dkuifp9", "score": 2, "text": "> I want my view changed so I can move forward with rescuing some unloved fish. But if the whole concept of fish tanks are cruel, then I do not want to engage in harming them.\n\nWithout being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nMaybe it makes more sense to compare the environment you would provide (a habitable tank, food, etc.) them with the life they would have otherwise. Obviously, a more natural environment is best, but if that's not possible, shouldn't we look at it in terms of harm reduction? i.e. you might be \"harming\" them, but you're harming them less than they otherwise would have been harmed.", "timestamp": 1501258067 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkujra3", "score": 1, "text": "> Without being rescued, what happens to the unloved fish? They die? \n\nEspecially with feeder goldfish and betas, yes, they are generally considered disposable and often die quick deaths or even get thrown out. So you are right, and I have thought about this too. But if I am furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, am I doing much better? How do we quantify what is worth it for them is the difficult part :/", "timestamp": 1501259427 }, { "author": "swearrengen", "id": "dkum063", "score": 3, "text": "You are not furthering their trauma with the illusion of bettering their lives, fish are under no illusions. (Such illusions would require a mind capable of reasoning at an abstract level, rather than sensory/perception). The state of mind of a Koi can be best determined by looking at their current physical health and behaviour (e.g. plucky movements versus lethargic). \n\nKoi growth depends on tank/pond size, they limit their size depending on the size of the pond at least (and possibly also on how crowded it is?). Small fry are fine for tanks, and I presume they won't grow very large in a tank. But I imagine they'd start eating each other if it got too crowded or they were of different sizes.\n", "timestamp": 1501261763 } ]	[ { "author": "Cadfan17", "id": "dkulzv1", "score": 2, "text": "Nature includes a baseline level of stress. Most animals die of either predation or starvation. Existence under those circumstances is inherently stressful. \n\nEven if a tank involved greater stress than a pond (I wouldn't automatically conclude that this is the case, herons fish in my family's pond), that isn't an important concern unless the amount of stress is meaningful. Do you have any reason to conclude that the stress of a tank is a meaningful negative on their qualify of life, or that it pushes them past some baseline at which the stress becomes morally meaningful? ", "timestamp": 1501261754 }, { "author": "broccolicat", "id": "dkuo6qs", "score": 1, "text": "This is a very compelling argument and thank you; I can't really conclude tanks alone contribute to pushing their stress to beyond being morally meaningful; I can only conclude that fish may recieve more stress due to tanks. I guess if I compare the potential stress of an ideal ethical tank setup with plenty of cover spaces, plants, quiet etc to an ideal outdoor pond setup where predators will always be a factor, saying a tank alone is trauma inducing may be unfair.\n\n!delta", "timestamp": 1501264062 }, { "author": "Cadfan17", "id": "dkuq528", "score": 2, "text": "Thank you for the delta. If you do get into aquarium care please consider studying up ahead of time so that you understand the systems and animals you're caring for. I asked someone I know who is knowledgeable on the issue and they recommended looking up books by Martin Moe. They say that he is one of the more accessible writers who still covers meaningful information on aquarium care. \n\nHe might be salt water focused, I'm unsure. But he might be a good start. ", "timestamp": 1501266143 } ]	[ "dkuifp9", "dkujra3", "dkum063" ]	[ "dkulzv1", "dkuo6qs", "dkuq528" ]
CMV. nfl is rigged trust me this is not your typical CMV post; as i really want you to change my view, 'cuz i want to like the NFL more now let me explain my view, the first and the biggest reasons i believe the NFL is rigged is that the NFL being an entertainment company (so this makes it like the wwe). with that out of the way i saw a lot of YouTube videos and Reddit posts claiming that some calls are really unreasonable, and some plays really makes the game sort of historic in a way (i watched a lot of games where the QB has 1 or two players open for receiving but instead he kinda wait to be sacked and then in the play \[4th and 15 or something\] comes the special team to fake it and the game become tight again. not mentioning the missed field goals from some of the "best" kickers on the NFL. with that out of the way. I discover Brian Tuohy (an author) and he opened my eye to a lot of things about sport rigging and stuff. so change my view. thanks for all the people who changed my mind, now i can enjoy the nfl again.	If this is true, then every game would be a close game, with lead changes and comeback wins. You wouldn't see a big blowout. You wouldn't see boring games with no big plays. You wouldn't see as many injuries. You wouldn't see dozens of minutes wasted every game due to the referees reviewing plays, or calling penalties that interrupt the flow of the game. You would see more successful blocked kicks, safeties, hail-mary passes, trick plays, and other exciting plays that rarely ever happen. It's hard to see every open receiver as a quarterback, as well as every defenseman who's about to tackle you. It's hard to kick a 35+ yard field goal. --- > then every game would be a close game, with lead changes and comeback wins i don't think so, as it will be really cheesy if it happened so much > You wouldn't see dozens of minutes wasted every game due to the referees reviewing plays it's called downtime and it's great for the ads --- So you've taken a hypothesis you can't prove and filter evidence in order to confirm your biases. If it looks rigged, it's rigged, if it doesn't look rigged it's rigged to look not rigged. If this is the basis of your critical thinking approach in life I honestly feel bad for you because you're setting yourself up to be very confused and paranoid by fooling yourself into thinking the whole world is conspiring against you.	Let me clarify something. Do you believe that individuals attempt to influence the results of the game for their own benefit at the expense of the team (throwing a game)? Or that the NFL is a giant conspiracy masquerading as a competition and the results of the games are predetermined (like WWE)? --- i believe that the NFL want the winners to be from the "bigger markets", and it will manipulate the story-lines to make them dramatic, --- Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have to support it?	e21pko	CMV. nfl is rigged	trust me this is not your typical CMV post; as i really want you to change my view, 'cuz i want to like the NFL more now let me explain my view, the first and the biggest reasons i believe the NFL is rigged is that the NFL being an entertainment company (so this makes it like the wwe). with that out of the way i saw a lot of YouTube videos and Reddit posts claiming that some calls are really unreasonable, and some plays really makes the game sort of historic in a way (i watched a lot of games where the QB has 1 or two players open for receiving but instead he kinda wait to be sacked and then in the play \[4th and 15 or something\] comes the special team to fake it and the game become tight again. not mentioning the missed field goals from some of the "best" kickers on the NFL. with that out of the way. I discover Brian Tuohy (an author) and he opened my eye to a lot of things about sport rigging and stuff. so change my view. thanks for all the people who changed my mind, now i can enjoy the nfl again.	oussama111	3	3	[ { "author": "svenson_26", "id": "f8szd35", "score": 2, "text": "If this is true, then every game would be a close game, with lead changes and comeback wins. You wouldn't see a big blowout. You wouldn't see boring games with no big plays. You wouldn't see as many injuries. You wouldn't see dozens of minutes wasted every game due to the referees reviewing plays, or calling penalties that interrupt the flow of the game. You would see more successful blocked kicks, safeties, hail-mary passes, trick plays, and other exciting plays that rarely ever happen. \n \nIt's hard to see every open receiver as a quarterback, as well as every defenseman who's about to tackle you. It's hard to kick a 35+ yard field goal.", "timestamp": 1574792428 }, { "author": "oussama111", "id": "f8t1h70", "score": -1, "text": "> then every game would be a close game, with lead changes and comeback wins\n\ni don't think so, as it will be really cheesy if it happened so much\n \n> You wouldn't see dozens of minutes wasted every game due to the referees reviewing plays\n\nit's called downtime and it's great for the ads", "timestamp": 1574793748 }, { "author": "lUNITl", "id": "f8t2crw", "score": 2, "text": "So you've taken a hypothesis you can't prove and filter evidence in order to confirm your biases. If it looks rigged, it's rigged, if it doesn't look rigged it's rigged to look not rigged. \n\nIf this is the basis of your critical thinking approach in life I honestly feel bad for you because you're setting yourself up to be very confused and paranoid by fooling yourself into thinking the whole world is conspiring against you.", "timestamp": 1574794287 } ]	[ { "author": "y0da1927", "id": "f8syuui", "score": 3, "text": "Let me clarify something. \n\nDo you believe that individuals attempt to influence the results of the game for their own benefit at the expense of the team (throwing a game)? Or that the NFL is a giant conspiracy masquerading as a competition and the results of the games are predetermined (like WWE)?", "timestamp": 1574792111 }, { "author": "oussama111", "id": "f8szy2b", "score": -1, "text": "i believe that the NFL want the winners to be from the \"bigger markets\", and it will manipulate the story-lines to make them dramatic,", "timestamp": 1574792792 }, { "author": "bigtoine", "id": "f8t0hix", "score": 1, "text": "Why do you believe that? What evidence do you have to support it?", "timestamp": 1574793129 } ]	[ "f8szd35", "f8t1h70", "f8t2crw" ]	[ "f8syuui", "f8szy2b", "f8t0hix" ]
CMV. nfl is rigged trust me this is not your typical CMV post; as i really want you to change my view, 'cuz i want to like the NFL more now let me explain my view, the first and the biggest reasons i believe the NFL is rigged is that the NFL being an entertainment company (so this makes it like the wwe). with that out of the way i saw a lot of YouTube videos and Reddit posts claiming that some calls are really unreasonable, and some plays really makes the game sort of historic in a way (i watched a lot of games where the QB has 1 or two players open for receiving but instead he kinda wait to be sacked and then in the play \[4th and 15 or something\] comes the special team to fake it and the game become tight again. not mentioning the missed field goals from some of the "best" kickers on the NFL. with that out of the way. I discover Brian Tuohy (an author) and he opened my eye to a lot of things about sport rigging and stuff. so change my view. thanks for all the people who changed my mind, now i can enjoy the nfl again.	Let me clarify something. Do you believe that individuals attempt to influence the results of the game for their own benefit at the expense of the team (throwing a game)? Or that the NFL is a giant conspiracy masquerading as a competition and the results of the games are predetermined (like WWE)? --- i believe that the NFL want the winners to be from the "bigger markets", and it will manipulate the story-lines to make them dramatic, --- Wouldn't the Giants and the hapless Jets be way more successful then?	Honestly, the risk reward for this would be way too low for the NFL to even think of this. The upside is making the sport a little more enjoyable. When it comes out, the downside would be a ton of lawsuits, people who stop watching the NFL altogether and possibly the end of the NFL and the start of a new football league. Besides, think about all the past and current players that would have to be involved in such a scheme. You really think the NFL would risk involving this many players and officials in such a big scheme? The probability of someone coming out and telling the truth would be way too high. --- > the downside would be a ton of lawsuits that's why i said that the NFL is an entertainment company (it's written in every ticket you buy) --- I guess, those other points I made still hold though. And even if the NFL classifies as an entertainment company. Betting agencies would still sue them instantly because the results were rigged. So it would still be a huge cost in lawsuits. And that’s only betting agencies.	e21pko	CMV. nfl is rigged	trust me this is not your typical CMV post; as i really want you to change my view, 'cuz i want to like the NFL more now let me explain my view, the first and the biggest reasons i believe the NFL is rigged is that the NFL being an entertainment company (so this makes it like the wwe). with that out of the way i saw a lot of YouTube videos and Reddit posts claiming that some calls are really unreasonable, and some plays really makes the game sort of historic in a way (i watched a lot of games where the QB has 1 or two players open for receiving but instead he kinda wait to be sacked and then in the play \[4th and 15 or something\] comes the special team to fake it and the game become tight again. not mentioning the missed field goals from some of the "best" kickers on the NFL. with that out of the way. I discover Brian Tuohy (an author) and he opened my eye to a lot of things about sport rigging and stuff. so change my view. thanks for all the people who changed my mind, now i can enjoy the nfl again.	oussama111	3	3	[ { "author": "y0da1927", "id": "f8syuui", "score": 3, "text": "Let me clarify something. \n\nDo you believe that individuals attempt to influence the results of the game for their own benefit at the expense of the team (throwing a game)? Or that the NFL is a giant conspiracy masquerading as a competition and the results of the games are predetermined (like WWE)?", "timestamp": 1574792111 }, { "author": "oussama111", "id": "f8szy2b", "score": -1, "text": "i believe that the NFL want the winners to be from the \"bigger markets\", and it will manipulate the story-lines to make them dramatic,", "timestamp": 1574792792 }, { "author": "woodelf", "id": "f8t0sam", "score": 4, "text": "Wouldn't the Giants and the hapless Jets be way more successful then?", "timestamp": 1574793317 } ]	[ { "author": "MainKoen", "id": "f8szq0c", "score": 1, "text": "Honestly, the risk reward for this would be way too low for the NFL to even think of this. The upside is making the sport a little more enjoyable. When it comes out, the downside would be a ton of lawsuits, people who stop watching the NFL altogether and possibly the end of the NFL and the start of a new football league.\n\nBesides, think about all the past and current players that would have to be involved in such a scheme. You really think the NFL would risk involving this many players and officials in such a big scheme? The probability of someone coming out and telling the truth would be way too high.", "timestamp": 1574792654 }, { "author": "oussama111", "id": "f8t10t7", "score": -1, "text": "> the downside would be a ton of lawsuits\n\nthat's why i said that the NFL is an entertainment company (it's written in every ticket you buy)", "timestamp": 1574793466 }, { "author": "MainKoen", "id": "f8t19xm", "score": 1, "text": "I guess, those other points I made still hold though.\n\nAnd even if the NFL classifies as an entertainment company. Betting agencies would still sue them instantly because the results were rigged. So it would still be a huge cost in lawsuits. And that’s only betting agencies.", "timestamp": 1574793621 } ]	[ "f8syuui", "f8szy2b", "f8t0sam" ]	[ "f8szq0c", "f8t10t7", "f8t19xm" ]
CMV: Pointing out “your” and “you’re” isn’t elitist. From a discussion I’ve had recently about the future of language. Certain parts of grammar (mostly revolving around apostrophes) are becoming less and less common and I was lamenting it, who which a friend replied “when is it ever unclear? We can understand what people mean when it’s said, we could understand it when it’s written” And the titular point: “Pushing your 90’s English is just being elitist.” So here I am. Is “your” and “their” the future? If a kid grows up having one word instead of three, are they going to be just fine? By correcting people, am I just prolonging the death of a defunct part of the language?	>By correcting people, am I just prolonging the death of a defunct part of the language? When and where are you correcting people? --- The casual “you’re” in every text message, game chat, message board and reddit thread I come across. Usually followed by “Got u fam” because people seem to like that more. --- But casual writing is very different from formal writing. When writing casually people just don't care and don't wanna put in more effort than necessary. If it's understandable it's fine in casual writing --- So of there exists two forms of English based on how formal or deliberate you’re being... doesn’t that just make the language even more complicated? --- It's not that the language changes. It's that being formally critical when people are casual is always elitist. We have dress shoes and we have trainers (running shoes, sneakers). If you call or someone's running shoes as improper since they aren't running while at a casual gathering you're being elitist. It doesn't mean shoes are wrong there. It just means you'd be elitist to call it out in that context. The rules are the rules. But the rules don't require your actions.	Do other homographs confuse people? Like bow? bass? minute? row? wave? Why would a couple more homographs confuse people anymore? --- How else is ‘wave’ pronounced? I can only think of one 🤔 --- They're both pronounced the same. But like wave your hand vs. a wave on the sea. Homographs share spelling (homo meaning same and graph meaning spelling) but have different meanings. --- Ah right, I thought they had to have different pronunciation as well. Cool, guess I learned something! --- Not all homographs are homophones? I think r/etymology would throw rocks if you tried using “heterophone” though.	d016e5	CMV: Pointing out “your” and “you’re” isn’t elitist.	From a discussion I’ve had recently about the future of language. Certain parts of grammar (mostly revolving around apostrophes) are becoming less and less common and I was lamenting it, who which a friend replied “when is it ever unclear? We can understand what people mean when it’s said, we could understand it when it’s written” And the titular point: “Pushing your 90’s English is just being elitist.” So here I am. Is “your” and “their” the future? If a kid grows up having one word instead of three, are they going to be just fine? By correcting people, am I just prolonging the death of a defunct part of the language?	Tack22	5	5	[ { "author": "speedywr", "id": "ez4tvy9", "score": 5, "text": ">By correcting people, am I just prolonging the death of a defunct part of the language?\n\nWhen and where are you correcting people?", "timestamp": 1567692030 }, { "author": "Tack22", "id": "ez4u8if", "score": 1, "text": "The casual “you’re” in every text message, game chat, message board and reddit thread I come across.\n\nUsually followed by “Got u fam” because people seem to like that more.", "timestamp": 1567692176 }, { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "ez4v1fk", "score": 2, "text": "But casual writing is very different from formal writing. When writing casually people just don't care and don't wanna put in more effort than necessary. If it's understandable it's fine in casual writing", "timestamp": 1567692490 }, { "author": "Tack22", "id": "ez4w7qd", "score": 2, "text": "So of there exists two forms of English based on how formal or deliberate you’re being... doesn’t that just make the language even more complicated?", "timestamp": 1567692988 }, { "author": "fox-mcleod", "id": "ez4y3ub", "score": 5, "text": "It's not that the language changes. It's that being formally critical when people are casual is always elitist. \n\nWe have dress shoes and we have trainers (running shoes, sneakers). If you call or someone's running shoes as improper since they aren't running while at a casual gathering you're being elitist. It doesn't mean shoes are wrong there. It just means you'd be elitist to call it out in that context. \n\nThe rules are the rules. But the rules don't require your actions.", "timestamp": 1567693869 } ]	[ { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "ez4utg0", "score": 5, "text": "Do other homographs confuse people? Like bow? bass? minute? row? wave? Why would a couple more homographs confuse people anymore?", "timestamp": 1567692401 }, { "author": "MethinksThatIsAPeach", "id": "ez4v6yt", "score": 1, "text": "How else is ‘wave’ pronounced? I can only think of one 🤔", "timestamp": 1567692552 }, { "author": "tbdabbholm", "id": "ez4vkvl", "score": 3, "text": "They're both pronounced the same. But like wave your hand vs. a wave on the sea. Homographs share spelling (homo meaning same and graph meaning spelling) but have different meanings.", "timestamp": 1567692705 }, { "author": "MethinksThatIsAPeach", "id": "ez4vtki", "score": 1, "text": "Ah right, I thought they had to have different pronunciation as well. Cool, guess I learned something!", "timestamp": 1567692812 }, { "author": "Tack22", "id": "ez4wfnw", "score": 1, "text": "Not all homographs are homophones?\n\nI think r/etymology would throw rocks if you tried using “heterophone” though.", "timestamp": 1567693092 } ]	[ "ez4tvy9", "ez4u8if", "ez4v1fk", "ez4w7qd", "ez4y3ub" ]	[ "ez4utg0", "ez4v6yt", "ez4vkvl", "ez4vtki", "ez4wfnw" ]
CMV: If Miguel from Pixar’s Coco wants to guarantee he will never be forgotten, and guarantee he will never disappear from the afterlife, he should become a serial killer. Pixar’s Coco is a beautiful and moving movie with excellent music and cultural awareness. But it has a not very secret horrific side to it: when no one on earth remembers your name or who you are, you disappear and die a final death. It is unknown if there is another, double afterlife after this. This is terrifying, and it gets worse when I think of all the evil people whose names we remember. People who have committed atrocities who we will remember forever. How many normal people who raised a family and we’re good, normal people do you remember? There’s only so much space on the ofrenda for pictures to help remember people. What about all the good people who are too far back to be there? Being a good family member and good normal person may get you some turkey legs and visits with your living relatives, but only for a few generations. Eventually, you will be forgotten by your descendants and you will disappear. Miguel could become a famous musician and guarantee his eternal future that way. He is quite a good singer and guitar player already, and being the great grandson of a famous and culturally beloved musician would give him a boost. But if he cannot become widely known this way, another safe way to guarantee his eternal future is to perform acts of great evil. Hitler? He’s covered. He’ll never disappear, much as we wish we could forget him. Names such as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, are burned into our minds. If Miguel is unable to become a famous musician for whatever reason, becoming a serial killer would guarantee he will never die a final death. He must also plan to be caught after a certain number of victims, so his real name will be known, as there are many killings believed to be the work of a single killer who was never caught and whose names are unknown. It is unknown if a pseudonym counts for Coco’s rules.	> Names such as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, are burned into our minds. No, they aren't. Hitler yes, but serial killers aren't that well-known. You need a lot more infamy than that to even compare to contemporary artists like Kanye West or Justin Bieber. --- It’s not a matter of having more fame. It’s just a guarantee of your name never fully disappearing from living minds. People know at least some of these names even if they don’t purposely seek out information about them. --- All those are recent names. What makes you think they won't be completely forgotten in another couple generations? If he really wants his name to never be forgotten, then publishing music or other beautiful works of art is the way to go. Or maybe an architect. In Ancient Egypt, only two commoners were ever deified after death: Amenhotep and Imhotep, both architects. They were worshipped for thousands of years after their death, and they ensured their names would never be forgotten. Literally carved in stone to ensure that. We can't name any serial killers from that era, though.	A lot of people who murder, get caught. You're saying that it'd be 'easy' for Coco to become a once-in-a-generation serial killer who will live on in infamy. I'd posit that it'd be easier for him to become a famous musician, than it would for him to become a famous serial killer. --- True, but most people who murder do so for personal reasons and have connections to the victims. If he planned his attacks carefully and his victims had no clear connections or relations to him or each other, and had no clear motives and no past leading people to believe he could be a suspect, he could last a while. But be that as it may, he could almost certainly become at least a decently well known musician with his genuine love of music, his skill and talent, and his familial connection to a famous and culturally beloved musician. !delta --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jaces_dream ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jaces_dream)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards) [](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART{"comment":"This_is_hidden_text_for_DB3_to_parse._Please_contact_the_author_of_DB3_if_you_see_this","issues":{},"parentUserName":"jaces_dream"}DB3PARAMSEND)	8osc0d	CMV: If Miguel from Pixar’s Coco wants to guarantee he will never be forgotten, and guarantee he will never disappear from the afterlife, he should become a serial killer.	Pixar’s Coco is a beautiful and moving movie with excellent music and cultural awareness. But it has a not very secret horrific side to it: when no one on earth remembers your name or who you are, you disappear and die a final death. It is unknown if there is another, double afterlife after this. This is terrifying, and it gets worse when I think of all the evil people whose names we remember. People who have committed atrocities who we will remember forever. How many normal people who raised a family and we’re good, normal people do you remember? There’s only so much space on the ofrenda for pictures to help remember people. What about all the good people who are too far back to be there? Being a good family member and good normal person may get you some turkey legs and visits with your living relatives, but only for a few generations. Eventually, you will be forgotten by your descendants and you will disappear. Miguel could become a famous musician and guarantee his eternal future that way. He is quite a good singer and guitar player already, and being the great grandson of a famous and culturally beloved musician would give him a boost. But if he cannot become widely known this way, another safe way to guarantee his eternal future is to perform acts of great evil. Hitler? He’s covered. He’ll never disappear, much as we wish we could forget him. Names such as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, are burned into our minds. If Miguel is unable to become a famous musician for whatever reason, becoming a serial killer would guarantee he will never die a final death. He must also plan to be caught after a certain number of victims, so his real name will be known, as there are many killings believed to be the work of a single killer who was never caught and whose names are unknown. It is unknown if a pseudonym counts for Coco’s rules.	CoolTom	3	3	[ { "author": "sunglao", "id": "e05prat", "score": 11, "text": "> Names such as Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, are burned into our minds. \n\nNo, they aren't.\n\nHitler yes, but serial killers aren't that well-known. You need a lot more infamy than that to even compare to contemporary artists like Kanye West or Justin Bieber.", "timestamp": 1528217685 }, { "author": "CoolTom", "id": "e05q6bl", "score": 2, "text": "It’s not a matter of having more fame. It’s just a guarantee of your name never fully disappearing from living minds. People know at least some of these names even if they don’t purposely seek out information about them. ", "timestamp": 1528218033 }, { "author": "Kopachris", "id": "e05qsz4", "score": 5, "text": "All those are recent names. What makes you think they won't be completely forgotten in another couple generations? If he really wants his name to never be forgotten, then publishing music or other beautiful works of art is the way to go. Or maybe an architect.\n\nIn Ancient Egypt, only two commoners were ever deified after death: Amenhotep and Imhotep, both architects. They were worshipped for thousands of years after their death, and they ensured their names would never be forgotten. Literally carved in stone to ensure that. We can't name any serial killers from that era, though.", "timestamp": 1528218576 } ]	[ { "author": "jaces_dream", "id": "e05u76u", "score": 3, "text": "A lot of people who murder, get caught. You're saying that it'd be 'easy' for Coco to become a once-in-a-generation serial killer who will live on in infamy. I'd posit that it'd be easier for him to become a famous musician, than it would for him to become a famous serial killer.", "timestamp": 1528221505 }, { "author": "CoolTom", "id": "e05vz1f", "score": 1, "text": "True, but most people who murder do so for personal reasons and have connections to the victims. If he planned his attacks carefully and his victims had no clear connections or relations to him or each other, and had no clear motives and no past leading people to believe he could be a suspect, he could last a while. \n\nBut be that as it may, he could almost certainly become at least a decently well known musician with his genuine love of music, his skill and talent, and his familial connection to a famous and culturally beloved musician. !delta", "timestamp": 1528223038 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "e05w1l1", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jaces_dream ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jaces_dream)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)\n[](HTTP://DB3PARAMSSTART{\"comment\":\"This_is_hidden_text_for_DB3_to_parse._Please_contact_the_author_of_DB3_if_you_see_this\",\"issues\":{},\"parentUserName\":\"jaces_dream\"}DB3PARAMSEND)", "timestamp": 1528223097 } ]	[ "e05prat", "e05q6bl", "e05qsz4" ]	[ "e05u76u", "e05vz1f", "e05w1l1" ]
CMV: Women who sexualize themselves and use their sex appeal to advance their careers in fields where sex appeal isn't a fundamental part, are hurting the women's movement, and should be discouraged from doing so. So in light of stuff like the #MeToo movement, many women are tired of being objectified, and being see solely as sex objects. Rightfully so, they want to be judged on their other merits, and not be seen just as a sex object for men's gaze. However, when attractive women purposely sexualize and objectify themselves to advance their careers, in my opinion, it just reinforces this idea that beautiful women are just "pieces of meat" for men to enjoy. More specifically, what made me think of this, is a recently popular female semi\-professional golfer by the name of Paige Spiranac. To put it bluntly, she is REALLY hot: Pretty blonde woman with skinny waist, voluptuous hindquarters, and ample bosom. Your pretty much textbook example of a "smoke show", and she knows it. She originally came to my attention because there was controversy because she got in trouble for violating the WPGA dress code because some of her outfits on the Tour were too skimpy and "sexy". And naturally, "feminist" outlets like Buzzfeed were complaining that these dress codes were misogynist and sexist. However, I couldn't help but think, the WPGA is a professional golf organization, and they are allowed to mandate a certain professional dress code. After all, the golf course in this context is a professional setting, and not a place to try and be "sexy". Men on the PGA Tour are required to adhere to a specific dress code of polo shirt and slacks and aren't allowed to dress "sexy" either. But I digress... One quick look google search of her or look through her social media profiles, and you can tell that she is CLEARLY trying to ride her physical sex appeal to fame. I can't help but think that this hurts the women's movement and the many women who are trying to be seen as more than just sex objects. Because by her doing so, it just reinforces this idea that sexually attractive women are there to just be eye candy for men to look at, and can't be taken seriously for much of anything else. Heck, I'll fully admit, I don't know about her because of her skills as a golfer. I know of her because she is smoking hot and fun to look at. Change my view that physically attractive women flaunting and overtly using their sex appeal to advance their careers doesn't hurt the women's movement. EDIT 1: I should add for clarification that the counterpoint to my current position is that many feminist outlets seem to believe this idea that women should feel free to embrace their sex appeal if they want to, and that it's actually empowering for women to do so.	There's the collectivist way of looking at it, where you can see a woman like Miley Cyrus calling herself a feminist but also using her body and sexuality in ways that reinforce the stereotypical nymphet who men objectify, and some can see that as setting the movement back. But there's also the individualist perspective, which is that Miley is claiming ownership of her own body and using her sexuality to empower herself. I get that you specified this logic would only apply, in your mind, in areas where sexuality wouldn't normally factor in. But the example used above illustrates that either perspective can been seen as valid. I think what it boils down to is not so much that women don't want to be objectified, but rather, that women want the freedom to pick and choose when they will monetize their bodies. And that's the rub, because there's a middle ground between the kind of sterilized work world where you cover everything up with a pant suit, vs. Miley gyrating around on stage in her underwear. A woman should be able to dress sexy if she wants to, and if say a waitress or a receptionist is using her body as a means of furthering her career, they want to be able to do that, and also to feel they have the freedom to do that if they so choose, without it having negative blowback in the form of sexual harassment. It's a novel concept, I know, but from what I gather, women are basically asking to pick and choose when they want to dress sexy and reveal their bodies a bit more, and they don't want to have to suffer any consequences for looking sexy if they so choose. The distinction you're drawing seems to be one or the other; that they either have to cover themselves up and present a sexually sterile image, or go full Myley and suffer all the objectification and harassment that comes along with it. I think that's a false choice. --- I totally get what you are saying, that women want to be able to control when they are sexualized and when they aren't. But I guess the thing that I am having trouble understanding is that when a woman uses her sex appeal to help her professional career, how does that not reinforce to the greater world and society that the sum of a woman's worth is in her sex appeal? How does that not make it harder for other women who want to be seen for their other merits and not their sex appeal or lack thereof? --- >But I guess the thing that I am having trouble understanding is that when a woman uses her sex appeal to help her professional career, how does that not reinforce to the greater world and society that the sum of a woman's worth is in her sex appeal? How does that not make it harder for other women who want to be seen for their other merits and not their sex appeal or lack thereof? Is it HELPING her professional career? Or is it the very thing that establishes and maintains the career in the first place? I think you are vastly overestimating the potential to which women can establish themselves in society based ENTIRELY on their looks. In any respectable field, you still have to be good at what you do to keep your job, no matter how hot you are. If Paige were legitimately a terrible golfer (and if you are truly saying that the SUM of her worth is her looks, then this is what you think of her), then she would be in the league for a few tournaments, play like total shit, then be booted from the LPGA. Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of other women who reached the LPGA solely on the merit of their golf skill and not based on their looks will continue to compete and succeed as long as they still golf well. The fact that one hottie got noticed and placed into the league did absolutely nothing to change the fact that you still have to be a good golfer if you want a career in golfing. That is true of every job ever. You have to be good at X if you want to keep doing X.	Anything that empowers a woman is generally embraced by whatever it is you consider to be the "women's movement". No feminist wants any woman to suppress her sexuality. They want women to freely embrace everything it means to be a woman. If being hot got this golfer attention, how is that a bad thing? Is it because she got an unfair advantage over less attractive women? Or because now people focus on her looks instead of on her actual skills? It doesn't matter how hot this golfer is, really...if she can't sink a putt, she still won't have much of a career. I just don't think it's that difficult to separate professional things from other things. Do you not think you can evaluate her golf skills as objectively and as fairly simply because of how she looks? I would have no problem doing that. If you can't, that's really more your problem, not hers. --- I guess the thing is that, she's NOT becoming famous because of her skills as a golfer. She's being catapulted into fame because of her looks, and she has zero problem using her sex appeal to launch into fame. The way I currently see it, is that she basically has zero problem being see as nothing more than a piece of meat to be gawked at. Even though she may personally have no problem with that, and is okay with being gawked at, I feel like it hurts other women who want to be seen as MORE than just their sex appeal and physical appearance. --- If she showed up at a tournament and hit a double bogey on every hole, do you think she'd still have a career in the LPGA? Sure her sex appeal might have launched her into the league, but she still has to golf as well as everyone else to keep her job, no matter how hot she is. If she's legitimately good enough at golf to be able to compete in the LPGA, it's hard to look at anything that helped her reach that league as a negative. If she hadn't utilized her sex appeal, she may have just had a boring life as an accountant or something. Is that seriously what is best for her? Women still have to prove themselves in their careers, and they still prove themselves by doing their job well. Anyone who focuses on beauty over their actual performance is kind of an idiot. If people kept her in the league as an awful yet super hot golfer, that would be incredibly obvious to anyone who actually knows golf. Why is it bad for someone to leverage something like sex appeal to get noticed?	8os9od	CMV: Women who sexualize themselves and use their sex appeal to advance their careers in fields where sex appeal isn't a fundamental part, are hurting the women's movement, and should be discouraged from doing so.	So in light of stuff like the #MeToo movement, many women are tired of being objectified, and being see solely as sex objects. Rightfully so, they want to be judged on their other merits, and not be seen just as a sex object for men's gaze. However, when attractive women purposely sexualize and objectify themselves to advance their careers, in my opinion, it just reinforces this idea that beautiful women are just "pieces of meat" for men to enjoy. More specifically, what made me think of this, is a recently popular female semi\-professional golfer by the name of Paige Spiranac. To put it bluntly, she is REALLY hot: Pretty blonde woman with skinny waist, voluptuous hindquarters, and ample bosom. Your pretty much textbook example of a "smoke show", and she knows it. She originally came to my attention because there was controversy because she got in trouble for violating the WPGA dress code because some of her outfits on the Tour were too skimpy and "sexy". And naturally, "feminist" outlets like Buzzfeed were complaining that these dress codes were misogynist and sexist. However, I couldn't help but think, the WPGA is a professional golf organization, and they are allowed to mandate a certain professional dress code. After all, the golf course in this context is a professional setting, and not a place to try and be "sexy". Men on the PGA Tour are required to adhere to a specific dress code of polo shirt and slacks and aren't allowed to dress "sexy" either. But I digress... One quick look google search of her or look through her social media profiles, and you can tell that she is CLEARLY trying to ride her physical sex appeal to fame. I can't help but think that this hurts the women's movement and the many women who are trying to be seen as more than just sex objects. Because by her doing so, it just reinforces this idea that sexually attractive women are there to just be eye candy for men to look at, and can't be taken seriously for much of anything else. Heck, I'll fully admit, I don't know about her because of her skills as a golfer. I know of her because she is smoking hot and fun to look at. Change my view that physically attractive women flaunting and overtly using their sex appeal to advance their careers doesn't hurt the women's movement. EDIT 1: I should add for clarification that the counterpoint to my current position is that many feminist outlets seem to believe this idea that women should feel free to embrace their sex appeal if they want to, and that it's actually empowering for women to do so.	Justgoahead123	3	3	[ { "author": "toldyaso", "id": "e05pq4d", "score": 6, "text": "There's the collectivist way of looking at it, where you can see a woman like Miley Cyrus calling herself a feminist but also using her body and sexuality in ways that reinforce the stereotypical nymphet who men objectify, and some can see that as setting the movement back.\n\nBut there's also the individualist perspective, which is that Miley is claiming ownership of her own body and using her sexuality to empower herself.\n\nI get that you specified this logic would only apply, in your mind, in areas where sexuality wouldn't normally factor in. But the example used above illustrates that either perspective can been seen as valid.\n\nI think what it boils down to is not so much that women don't want to be objectified, but rather, that women want the freedom to pick and choose when they will monetize their bodies. And that's the rub, because there's a middle ground between the kind of sterilized work world where you cover everything up with a pant suit, vs. Miley gyrating around on stage in her underwear. A woman should be able to dress sexy if she wants to, and if say a waitress or a receptionist is using her body as a means of furthering her career, they want to be able to do that, and also to feel they have the freedom to do that if they so choose, without it having negative blowback in the form of sexual harassment.\n\nIt's a novel concept, I know, but from what I gather, women are basically asking to pick and choose when they want to dress sexy and reveal their bodies a bit more, and they don't want to have to suffer any consequences for looking sexy if they so choose.\n\nThe distinction you're drawing seems to be one or the other; that they either have to cover themselves up and present a sexually sterile image, or go full Myley and suffer all the objectification and harassment that comes along with it. I think that's a false choice.", "timestamp": 1528217658 }, { "author": "Justgoahead123", "id": "e05rnap", "score": 2, "text": "I totally get what you are saying, that women want to be able to control when they are sexualized and when they aren't.\n\nBut I guess the thing that I am having trouble understanding is that when a woman uses her sex appeal to help her professional career, how does that not reinforce to the greater world and society that the sum of a woman's worth is in her sex appeal? How does that not make it harder for other women who want to be seen for their other merits and not their sex appeal or lack thereof?", "timestamp": 1528219320 }, { "author": "malachai926", "id": "e05sygo", "score": 10, "text": ">But I guess the thing that I am having trouble understanding is that when a woman uses her sex appeal to help her professional career, how does that not reinforce to the greater world and society that the sum of a woman's worth is in her sex appeal? How does that not make it harder for other women who want to be seen for their other merits and not their sex appeal or lack thereof?\n\n\nIs it HELPING her professional career? Or is it the very thing that establishes and maintains the career in the first place?\n\nI think you are vastly overestimating the potential to which women can establish themselves in society based ENTIRELY on their looks. In any respectable field, you still have to be good at what you do to keep your job, no matter how hot you are.\n\nIf Paige were legitimately a terrible golfer (and if you are truly saying that the SUM of her worth is her looks, then this is what you think of her), then she would be in the league for a few tournaments, play like total shit, then be booted from the LPGA. Meanwhile hundreds if not thousands of other women who reached the LPGA solely on the merit of their golf skill and not based on their looks will continue to compete and succeed as long as they still golf well. The fact that one hottie got noticed and placed into the league did absolutely nothing to change the fact that you still have to be a good golfer if you want a career in golfing. That is true of every job ever. You have to be good at X if you want to keep doing X.", "timestamp": 1528220440 } ]	[ { "author": "malachai926", "id": "e05ozt3", "score": 3, "text": "Anything that empowers a woman is generally embraced by whatever it is you consider to be the \"women's movement\". No feminist wants any woman to suppress her sexuality. They want women to freely embrace everything it means to be a woman.\n\nIf being hot got this golfer attention, how is that a bad thing? Is it because she got an unfair advantage over less attractive women? Or because now people focus on her looks instead of on her actual skills? It doesn't matter how hot this golfer is, really...if she can't sink a putt, she still won't have much of a career.\n\nI just don't think it's that difficult to separate professional things from other things. Do you not think you can evaluate her golf skills as objectively and as fairly simply because of how she looks? I would have no problem doing that. If you can't, that's really more your problem, not hers.", "timestamp": 1528217043 }, { "author": "Justgoahead123", "id": "e05pgpx", "score": 1, "text": "I guess the thing is that, she's NOT becoming famous because of her skills as a golfer. She's being catapulted into fame because of her looks, and she has zero problem using her sex appeal to launch into fame.\n\nThe way I currently see it, is that she basically has zero problem being see as nothing more than a piece of meat to be gawked at.\n\nEven though she may personally have no problem with that, and is okay with being gawked at, I feel like it hurts other women who want to be seen as MORE than just their sex appeal and physical appearance.", "timestamp": 1528217439 }, { "author": "malachai926", "id": "e05q219", "score": 0, "text": "If she showed up at a tournament and hit a double bogey on every hole, do you think she'd still have a career in the LPGA? Sure her sex appeal might have launched her into the league, but she still has to golf as well as everyone else to keep her job, no matter how hot she is.\n\nIf she's legitimately good enough at golf to be able to compete in the LPGA, it's hard to look at anything that helped her reach that league as a negative. If she hadn't utilized her sex appeal, she may have just had a boring life as an accountant or something. Is that seriously what is best for her?\n\nWomen still have to prove themselves in their careers, and they still prove themselves by doing their job well. Anyone who focuses on beauty over their actual performance is kind of an idiot. If people kept her in the league as an awful yet super hot golfer, that would be incredibly obvious to anyone who actually knows golf.\n\nWhy is it bad for someone to leverage something like sex appeal to get noticed?", "timestamp": 1528217933 } ]	[ "e05pq4d", "e05rnap", "e05sygo" ]	[ "e05ozt3", "e05pgpx", "e05q219" ]
CMV: Israel and Hamas are both irreconcilably bad actors and neither deserves an ounce of my support One is a rogue nuclear state (funny when we do/don’t care about Nuclear Non-Proliferation) with an apartheid regime and a paranoid, homicidal maniac in charge. The other is an Islamist group that launches attacks on unarmed civilians and uses its own children as human shields. Both kowtow to religious extremists, and I want both of them the fuck out of my country’s politics forever. There’s no reason whatsoever that I should offer any support or sympathy whatsoever to either Hamas or Likud, yet in the United States there is extraordinary pressure to adopt an extremist position on a conflict with no inherent bearing on our own national existential security. I as an individual, and the United States as a sovereign nation, have no compelling moral, economic, or national security reason to support either of these organized actors. If you want to offer humanitarian aid then be my guest, but I should not be expected to provide any material, financial, or verbal support to either of these groups. CMV: Tell me why I shouldn’t hate the particular party in this conflict that you’ve made it your entire personality to support.	I actually would be relatively fine with everyone pulling support entirely and just letting them figure it out on their own, but give asylum to anyone who wants to leave. --- Yeah, no objection here. I have no problem whatsoever with American Jews or Arabs, so long as they aren’t pressuring me to support any monstrous regimes overseas. --- Why specify American? Do you take issue with Israeli Jews for being Israeli and Jewish? Or Palestinian Arabs for being Palestinian and Arab? People too often forget that civilians are not their politicians.	Israel needs all the support it can get. It's the Western tip of the spear, the thorn in the sides of panIslamists and panArabists.. Israel is our hope --- eww. more like the latest example of violent colonialism. --- If you live in the West, you're a beneficiary of that.. you just want to pretend you aren't.	1la3bsm	CMV: Israel and Hamas are both irreconcilably bad actors and neither deserves an ounce of my support	One is a rogue nuclear state (funny when we do/don’t care about Nuclear Non-Proliferation) with an apartheid regime and a paranoid, homicidal maniac in charge. The other is an Islamist group that launches attacks on unarmed civilians and uses its own children as human shields. Both kowtow to religious extremists, and I want both of them the fuck out of my country’s politics forever. There’s no reason whatsoever that I should offer any support or sympathy whatsoever to either Hamas or Likud, yet in the United States there is extraordinary pressure to adopt an extremist position on a conflict with no inherent bearing on our own national existential security. I as an individual, and the United States as a sovereign nation, have no compelling moral, economic, or national security reason to support either of these organized actors. If you want to offer humanitarian aid then be my guest, but I should not be expected to provide any material, financial, or verbal support to either of these groups. CMV: Tell me why I shouldn’t hate the particular party in this conflict that you’ve made it your entire personality to support.	unenlightenedgoblin	3	3	[ { "author": "L11mbm", "id": "mxhhvr0", "score": 15, "text": "I actually would be relatively fine with everyone pulling support entirely and just letting them figure it out on their own, but give asylum to anyone who wants to leave.", "timestamp": 1749777346 }, { "author": "unenlightenedgoblin", "id": "mxhiju3", "score": 2, "text": "Yeah, no objection here. I have no problem whatsoever with American Jews or Arabs, so long as they aren’t pressuring me to support any monstrous regimes overseas.", "timestamp": 1749777580 }, { "author": "Letshavemorefun", "id": "mxhjkj0", "score": -1, "text": "Why specify American? Do you take issue with Israeli Jews for being Israeli and Jewish? Or Palestinian Arabs for being Palestinian and Arab? \n\nPeople too often forget that civilians are not their politicians.", "timestamp": 1749777937 } ]	[ { "author": "Swimreadmed", "id": "mxhhpdg", "score": -18, "text": "Israel needs all the support it can get.\nIt's the Western tip of the spear, the thorn in the sides of panIslamists and panArabists.. Israel is our hope ", "timestamp": 1749777284 }, { "author": "innovarocforever", "id": "mxhi1ke", "score": -1, "text": "eww. more like the latest example of violent colonialism.", "timestamp": 1749777402 }, { "author": "Swimreadmed", "id": "mxhi90m", "score": -4, "text": "If you live in the West, you're a beneficiary of that.. you just want to pretend you aren't.", "timestamp": 1749777474 } ]	[ "mxhhvr0", "mxhiju3", "mxhjkj0" ]	[ "mxhhpdg", "mxhi1ke", "mxhi90m" ]
CMV: Depression, anxiety and other mental health issues especially among Gen Z and Millennials, has began to be treated lightly and too often thrown around & glorified/romanticized. Purely from my observations especially on social media, so many people within the Millennial-Gen Z age range have been treating topics of mental illnesses like depression & anxiety too lightly. I have no intention to say them saying they have depression/anxiety/other mental illnesses is not valid, especially those that are actually clinically diagnosed. I'm talking about memes like "I have crippling depression" or "I need serotonin" & self-diagnosis. (Although I think self-diagnosis is helpful to see what you COULD have, it should not be tantamount to an actual professional diagnosis.) To some degree, I also think this has made a culture of glorifying/romanticizing being mentally ill because it has become part of mainstream media. Take 13 reasons why and its fans & how they defend characters within it, even though the show is flawed in how it depicts mental illness. Or manga and anime as well - most protagonists are loners or outcasts and are described "anti-social", due to this, these personality traits have become revered and associated with someone that is "cool" or "smart", making it desirable even though it just leads to more isolation which inevitably leads to sadness. I do not think this is inherently their fault or they are "doing it to get attention", but I do think that it is a fault in the sense that they don't think any deeper of the effects their claims have on other people that might actually be experiencing symptoms of clinical depression/severe anxiety, and it begins to be treated too lightly or not thought of as something serious. What I'm saying is - it becomes a personality trait, or worse, a passing "self-deprecating" joke. It feels too shallow of an understanding of mental illnesses, but I do know that I am also not an expert and there are various forms and ways of experiencing their symptoms and not everyone can be diagnosed. Would like input on this; this has been a view I've held for a long time and I've started to notice my own prejudices getting the best of me - like thinking my friends are "exaggerating" or not thinking critically about their problems and just turning to emotional responses (like being sad, complaining, crying, etc.) even if their problems seem like they could be easily fixed. Another thing I want to discuss: what draws the line between experiencing depression (like literally being physically and mentally hindered from moving/going forward) and simply avoiding to fix your problems even when it is easily fixed?	If it leads to more people being willing to admit it and get help, does it matter? Shouldn’t the stigma around mental illness evaporating be looked on as a good thing? Also, if you’re avoiding your problems and refusing to fix them, you obviously have some mental issues that you need to work out. --- That is very true, thank you. But I've considered that maybe it adds to the misconceptions around it? Like maybe skewed/inaccurate understanding of mental illnesses/health issues - like treating them lightly through memes - is something that lets impressionable young teens feel like it is something to be desired rather than something that informs them of these things better/makes them understand how actually bad it would be to have them? --- I'd much rather people who don't have a mental health problem think they have a problem and work on treating it than have people who actually do have a problem feel like their issues aren't bad enough to treat. Also just because you laugh at something and make memes about it doesn't mean that you aren't also taking it seriously. Sometimes dark humor is how people cope with seriously bad shit. I've had someone threaten to rape me until I turned straight and another person threaten to "shove broken glass up [my] dyke ass." I still make plenty of jokes about homophobia. It doesn't mean that I don't get disturbed by the threats. Trust me, I remember them because they scared me shitless. However that encourages me to make memes. Humor can be a coping strategy to deal with the bad stuff in life. It's a way of reframing it so that there's a silver lining to a very dark cloud. Making jokes about a subject means that I'm in control of it. I'm no longer just a victim; I can use use humor as a tool to change the situation.	I mean, I’ve been institutionalized for mental illness in a psychiatric hospital before. We joked about our illnesses all the time. Some aspects of mental illness are inherently funny - like, for example, not being able to have shoelaces to prevent self harm. Like, who would hurt themselves with a shoelace? When people make jokes about mental illness, it’s a coping mechanism. It helps to prevent the encroaching bitterness and resentment that comes with these types of conditions. Romanticization of mental illness isn’t the same as using comedy to express your illness. Romanticization usually occurs when media fails to depict the realistic sufferings that come with disease. Issues arise because the negatives of the affliction aren’t accurately represented, and can increase the stigma around the ‘uglier’ parts of mental illness. --- I have also discussed this with my girlfriend that makes a lot of self-deprecating jokes as her coping mechanism. I feel that isn't it better to, say, make overpraising jokes for yourself rather than self-deprecating ones? A more positive reinforcement? Because it could be a coping mechanism, but it might not be a very healthy one. But in no way do I expect people/everyone to feel comfortable with that though! Also that is very true, thank you so much. After your statement, I do see the difference between using comedy to express mental illness and romanticization. I considered self deprecation as an extension of romanticization. --- So, I mean I personally think that jokes like “I am human garbage toss me in the dumpster so I can be with the trash” can be harmful if you’re communicating that you actually are trash. But most of the time, people are kind of mocking how much they hate themselves. I have OCD, an illness that’s romanticized a lot. Romanticization sucks because now, a lot of people think OCD is just being anal about cleanliness or symmetry. I had no idea that my intrusive thoughts and compulsions were a result of OCD until after my diagnosis because the public perception of OCD is highly inaccurate. Romanticization prevented me from understanding my own issues. Humor is a really, really good tool in dealing with intrusive thoughts. Instead of obsessing about how bad a person I am for thinking specific things, it’s tremendously helpful to just laugh at the ridiculousness. It also helps to understand how incongruous with reality specific fears are - like no, exiting from a separate door that I entered from won’t strand me in an alternate dimension, what are you talking about brain, you’re not making sense that’s not how doors work. I have OCD, so I’ll always have weird thoughts like that. Since I can’t get rid of them, I have to learn how to understand them in a context that I can cope with, and humor is extremely effective in that regard.	l1egov	CMV: Depression, anxiety and other mental health issues especially among Gen Z and Millennials, has began to be treated lightly and too often thrown around & glorified/romanticized.	Purely from my observations especially on social media, so many people within the Millennial-Gen Z age range have been treating topics of mental illnesses like depression & anxiety too lightly. I have no intention to say them saying they have depression/anxiety/other mental illnesses is not valid, especially those that are actually clinically diagnosed. I'm talking about memes like "I have crippling depression" or "I need serotonin" & self-diagnosis. (Although I think self-diagnosis is helpful to see what you COULD have, it should not be tantamount to an actual professional diagnosis.) To some degree, I also think this has made a culture of glorifying/romanticizing being mentally ill because it has become part of mainstream media. Take 13 reasons why and its fans & how they defend characters within it, even though the show is flawed in how it depicts mental illness. Or manga and anime as well - most protagonists are loners or outcasts and are described "anti-social", due to this, these personality traits have become revered and associated with someone that is "cool" or "smart", making it desirable even though it just leads to more isolation which inevitably leads to sadness. I do not think this is inherently their fault or they are "doing it to get attention", but I do think that it is a fault in the sense that they don't think any deeper of the effects their claims have on other people that might actually be experiencing symptoms of clinical depression/severe anxiety, and it begins to be treated too lightly or not thought of as something serious. What I'm saying is - it becomes a personality trait, or worse, a passing "self-deprecating" joke. It feels too shallow of an understanding of mental illnesses, but I do know that I am also not an expert and there are various forms and ways of experiencing their symptoms and not everyone can be diagnosed. Would like input on this; this has been a view I've held for a long time and I've started to notice my own prejudices getting the best of me - like thinking my friends are "exaggerating" or not thinking critically about their problems and just turning to emotional responses (like being sad, complaining, crying, etc.) even if their problems seem like they could be easily fixed. Another thing I want to discuss: what draws the line between experiencing depression (like literally being physically and mentally hindered from moving/going forward) and simply avoiding to fix your problems even when it is easily fixed?	felicityaerie	3	3	[ { "author": "Rkenne16", "id": "gjyx66f", "score": 153, "text": "If it leads to more people being willing to admit it and get help, does it matter? Shouldn’t the stigma around mental illness evaporating be looked on as a good thing? \n\nAlso, if you’re avoiding your problems and refusing to fix them, you obviously have some mental issues that you need to work out.", "timestamp": 1611166643 }, { "author": "felicityaerie", "id": "gjyyhgk", "score": 43, "text": "That is very true, thank you. But I've considered that maybe it adds to the misconceptions around it?\n\nLike maybe skewed/inaccurate understanding of mental illnesses/health issues - like treating them lightly through memes - is something that lets impressionable young teens feel like it is something to be desired rather than something that informs them of these things better/makes them understand how actually bad it would be to have them?", "timestamp": 1611167201 }, { "author": "Sagasujin", "id": "gjz161o", "score": 87, "text": "I'd much rather people who don't have a mental health problem think they have a problem and work on treating it than have people who actually do have a problem feel like their issues aren't bad enough to treat.\n\nAlso just because you laugh at something and make memes about it doesn't mean that you aren't also taking it seriously. Sometimes dark humor is how people cope with seriously bad shit. I've had someone threaten to rape me until I turned straight and another person threaten to \"shove broken glass up [my] dyke ass.\" I still make plenty of jokes about homophobia. It doesn't mean that I don't get disturbed by the threats. Trust me, I remember them because they scared me shitless. However that encourages me to make memes. Humor can be a coping strategy to deal with the bad stuff in life. It's a way of reframing it so that there's a silver lining to a very dark cloud. Making jokes about a subject means that I'm in control of it. I'm no longer just a victim; I can use use humor as a tool to change the situation.", "timestamp": 1611168363 } ]	[ { "author": "MinuteReady", "id": "gjz01ua", "score": 27, "text": "I mean, I’ve been institutionalized for mental illness in a psychiatric hospital before. We joked about our illnesses all the time. Some aspects of mental illness are inherently funny - like, for example, not being able to have shoelaces to prevent self harm. Like, who would hurt themselves with a shoelace? \n\nWhen people make jokes about mental illness, it’s a coping mechanism. It helps to prevent the encroaching bitterness and resentment that comes with these types of conditions. \n\nRomanticization of mental illness isn’t the same as using comedy to express your illness. Romanticization usually occurs when media fails to depict the realistic sufferings that come with disease. Issues arise because the negatives of the affliction aren’t accurately represented, and can increase the stigma around the ‘uglier’ parts of mental illness.", "timestamp": 1611167876 }, { "author": "felicityaerie", "id": "gjz1f4k", "score": 3, "text": "I have also discussed this with my girlfriend that makes a lot of self-deprecating jokes as her coping mechanism. I feel that isn't it better to, say, make overpraising jokes for yourself rather than self-deprecating ones? A more positive reinforcement?\n\nBecause it could be a coping mechanism, but it might not be a very healthy one. But in no way do I expect people/everyone to feel comfortable with that though!\n\nAlso that is very true, thank you so much. After your statement, I do see the difference between using comedy to express mental illness and romanticization. I considered self deprecation as an extension of romanticization.", "timestamp": 1611168470 }, { "author": "MinuteReady", "id": "gjz31iz", "score": 23, "text": "So, I mean I personally think that jokes like “I am human garbage toss me in the dumpster so I can be with the trash” can be harmful if you’re communicating that you actually are trash. But most of the time, people are kind of mocking how much they hate themselves. \n\nI have OCD, an illness that’s romanticized a lot. Romanticization sucks because now, a lot of people think OCD is just being anal about cleanliness or symmetry. I had no idea that my intrusive thoughts and compulsions were a result of OCD until after my diagnosis because the public perception of OCD is highly inaccurate. Romanticization prevented me from understanding my own issues.\n\nHumor is a really, really good tool in dealing with intrusive thoughts. Instead of obsessing about how bad a person I am for thinking specific things, it’s tremendously helpful to just laugh at the ridiculousness. It also helps to understand how incongruous with reality specific fears are - like no, exiting from a separate door that I entered from won’t strand me in an alternate dimension, what are you talking about brain, you’re not making sense that’s not how doors work. \n\nI have OCD, so I’ll always have weird thoughts like that. Since I can’t get rid of them, I have to learn how to understand them in a context that I can cope with, and humor is extremely effective in that regard.", "timestamp": 1611169163 } ]	[ "gjyx66f", "gjyyhgk", "gjz161o" ]	[ "gjz01ua", "gjz1f4k", "gjz31iz" ]
CMV: If Brexit doesn't happen we have made an absolute joke of democracy I've been thinking this for a while. And for those interested in the referendum I voted remain, and still feel that way however I find the fact that we voted for Brexit and now every politician and MP is doing everything they can to railroad Brexit and sabotage the plan. If we all came together, to perform in the interest of the people, instead of squabbling amongst ourselves and stabbing each other in the back with skulduggery, we would have had a deal by now. I think it's an absolute joke. Whilst I didn't agree with the decision I respect the fact that that was the voice of the people. Now it seems everything is being done to shaft the entire plan, why even offer the vote if we are not gonna go through with it? I also can guarantee if this were the other way round the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as severe as it is now. Screw Brexit and Remain, this should be a massive indicator that we actually have no say in the future of our country as the top dogs will just do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of the will of the people. EDIT: Thank you for those who offered actual genuine debate. I honestly learnt a lot and my opinion, whilst not totally swayed, is certainly more open. To those who decided to be complete dicks instead of actually having a decent conversation, I hope you enjoy the lasting pain of a cactus stabbing you in the eye. I now have to get back to work and will no longer be able to reply. Thank you guys for making my first CMV an interesting one! 😁	Asserting that the referendum really is the "voice of the people" is the real mockery of democracy. Democracy depends of the affected people making decisions about known quantities and coming to clear majority consensus. None of these things were true about the brexit referendum. Even if we give the leave campaign absolute benefit of the doubt and assume that the voters were fully informed of the possibilities (which they weren't) and that none of the leave campaign's promises were outright lies (which they were) then there is still no clear majority for brexit: we can safely assume that at least some of the leave voters wanted a soft brexit, some wanted a hard brexit, and certainly very few envisioned crashing out with no deal. There's no majority for no deal brexit. Furthermore, what about the constituents who voted for PMs they knew were in favor of a deal, or no brexit at all? Shouldn't that Democratic voice be heard? What is the point of representative democracy if the government is going to cancel parliament to push through a decision that the elected representatives don't want? And finally there's the issue of suffrage. Many of the people most affected by brexit - foreigners in Britain - never got a say in brexit at all. The referendum simply cannot be called the voice of the people. --- I am a foreigner in Britain. I feel that the House of Commons makes way too many decisions that they know nothing about. Neither side give a toss because their cushy 45k upwards isn't affected either way. I prefer a referendum over some 60 year old man who went to Eton and has never seen a day of hardship in his life make a decision about the lives of the populace. --- And the average working class citizen knows enough about the details of international trade dynamics to make a better decision? This is why representative democracy exists in the first place, direct democracy is subject to the whims if the mob, and a representative democracy allows a more informed decision. --- Well an average working class citizen would probably have the stones to go through with what people voted for rather than saying "you know what, I know we are better off staying in the EU so screw what they said" --- "Better to just put blinders on and continue on this shitty path than to take a moment to recognize things have changed and rethink the situation." --- Better to have never voted at all. I was on the losing side and I'm still somehow coming out with a win. I can only feel for the hundreds of thousands who actually were on the majority side who have now been blatantly betrayed. That's my argument. --- Your argument is contingent on brexit being canceled indefinitely without any input from the public, something which hasn't happened yet and is looking highly unlikely. There will almost certainly be a general election in the coming months, and the fate of brexit will be decided then, democratically, by the same people who voted in the referendum. If a remain MP wins a seat, on a campaign of remaining, how can they be betraying anyone by sticking to their word? For that matter, there was an election after the referendum and a number of MP's were elected on the platform of stopping brexit. Are they being undemocratic or betraying the people by following through on the promises that got them elected? Labour for example set out in their 2017 manifesto that they wanted to stay in the single market and customs union as part of brexit, and later that they would not support any deal that took us out of the customs union. Supporting any of the brexit options May or Johnson have put forward would have been reneging on those pledges, the pledges that they were elected under. Is it undemocratic for an MP to stick to the promises they made to their constituents? Our MP's are elected by us, to claim any political action they take (that is in line with the platform they were elected under) is undemocratic, is to say that the referendum was more important than the general election. I don't remember that ever being established, I elected my MP to look after my and my constituencies interests, not to follow the vague and undefined "will of the people".	No one voted for a no-deal Brexit. People voted based on the lie that the UK could get a good deal to leave the EU without any significant consequences. The actual choices of a bad deal, no deal, or remaining was never presented to voters. If you want to listen to the voice of the people, give them the actual options available to vote on. Edit: And how can you guarantee that the backlash wouldn’t be as bad the other way around? In my opinion it would likely be worse. Pro-Brexit groups would be constantly bitching about it literally for forever, because they never would have seen what the actual Brexit process would be like as we now have, and therefore would still fully believe all the lies told about it prior to the vote. --- The British people voted to leave the EU. Full stop. They did not vote to leave the EU only if the sky is blue, or if the grass is green or if some other precondition exist. What is happening now is a corruption of democracy by the rich and powerful, who never wanted Brexit because it will cost them money. --- They absolutely did vote to leave the EU based on specific conditions - the conditions they were promised were that a good deal could be reached with the EU. Those promises were lies. Forcing a population to follow through with something they only agreed to based on a bunch of lies is not democracy. If you want to listen to the will of the people, give them another vote now that they actually understand the options available for the UK. --- [deleted] --- So have another vote now that everyone understands the real options available for the UK. If they still vote for Brexit because they think it’s worth it even knowing what it will cost the UK, fine. But it doesn’t look like that is the case. It was a very close vote when the vote was based on a bunch of lies. It’s very, very unlikely that the same results would be had if the vote were held today. Some people like your niece would certainly still vote to leave, but they are likely now in a significant minority. --- So the British must vote again and again until they get the "right" result? --- People have the right to change their mind. There is no principle of democracy requiring one single vote to determine what a nation will do forever. If there is reason to think that the people have changed their minds, yeah, have another vote. If even later there is reason to think they changed their minds again, have yet another vote. More votes is more opportunities for the current will of the people to be followed. There is no “right” result, but what the people want today is what should be done, not what they wanted years ago.	czz5vm	CMV: If Brexit doesn't happen we have made an absolute joke of democracy	I've been thinking this for a while. And for those interested in the referendum I voted remain, and still feel that way however I find the fact that we voted for Brexit and now every politician and MP is doing everything they can to railroad Brexit and sabotage the plan. If we all came together, to perform in the interest of the people, instead of squabbling amongst ourselves and stabbing each other in the back with skulduggery, we would have had a deal by now. I think it's an absolute joke. Whilst I didn't agree with the decision I respect the fact that that was the voice of the people. Now it seems everything is being done to shaft the entire plan, why even offer the vote if we are not gonna go through with it? I also can guarantee if this were the other way round the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as severe as it is now. Screw Brexit and Remain, this should be a massive indicator that we actually have no say in the future of our country as the top dogs will just do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of the will of the people. EDIT: Thank you for those who offered actual genuine debate. I honestly learnt a lot and my opinion, whilst not totally swayed, is certainly more open. To those who decided to be complete dicks instead of actually having a decent conversation, I hope you enjoy the lasting pain of a cactus stabbing you in the eye. I now have to get back to work and will no longer be able to reply. Thank you guys for making my first CMV an interesting one! 😁	SuperPowerDragon	7	7	[ { "author": "MercurianAspirations", "id": "ez47kln", "score": 87, "text": "Asserting that the referendum really is the \"voice of the people\" is the real mockery of democracy. Democracy depends of the affected people making decisions about known quantities and coming to clear majority consensus. None of these things were true about the brexit referendum. Even if we give the leave campaign absolute benefit of the doubt and assume that the voters were fully informed of the possibilities (which they weren't) and that none of the leave campaign's promises were outright lies (which they were) then there is still no clear majority for brexit: we can safely assume that at least some of the leave voters wanted a soft brexit, some wanted a hard brexit, and certainly very few envisioned crashing out with no deal. There's no majority for no deal brexit. Furthermore, what about the constituents who voted for PMs they knew were in favor of a deal, or no brexit at all? Shouldn't that Democratic voice be heard? What is the point of representative democracy if the government is going to cancel parliament to push through a decision that the elected representatives don't want? And finally there's the issue of suffrage. Many of the people most affected by brexit - foreigners in Britain - never got a say in brexit at all. The referendum simply cannot be called the voice of the people.", "timestamp": 1567682414 }, { "author": "SuperPowerDragon", "id": "ez4j7b6", "score": 0, "text": "I am a foreigner in Britain. I feel that the House of Commons makes way too many decisions that they know nothing about. Neither side give a toss because their cushy 45k upwards isn't affected either way. I prefer a referendum over some 60 year old man who went to Eton and has never seen a day of hardship in his life make a decision about the lives of the populace.", "timestamp": 1567687675 }, { "author": "skahunter831", "id": "ez4lfex", "score": 8, "text": "And the average working class citizen knows enough about the details of international trade dynamics to make a better decision? This is why representative democracy exists in the first place, direct democracy is subject to the whims if the mob, and a representative democracy allows a more informed decision.", "timestamp": 1567688639 }, { "author": "SuperPowerDragon", "id": "ez4lnr8", "score": 2, "text": "Well an average working class citizen would probably have the stones to go through with what people voted for rather than saying \"you know what, I know we are better off staying in the EU so screw what they said\"", "timestamp": 1567688729 }, { "author": "skahunter831", "id": "ez4m1r5", "score": 7, "text": "\"Better to just put blinders on and continue on this shitty path than to take a moment to recognize things have changed and rethink the situation.\"", "timestamp": 1567688881 }, { "author": "SuperPowerDragon", "id": "ez4mqsi", "score": 3, "text": "Better to have never voted at all. I was on the losing side and I'm still somehow coming out with a win. I can only feel for the hundreds of thousands who actually were on the majority side who have now been blatantly betrayed. That's my argument.", "timestamp": 1567689171 }, { "author": "Jebofkerbin", "id": "ez4x5x3", "score": 1, "text": "Your argument is contingent on brexit being canceled indefinitely without any input from the public, something which hasn't happened yet and is looking highly unlikely.\n\nThere will almost certainly be a general election in the coming months, and the fate of brexit will be decided then, democratically, by the same people who voted in the referendum. If a remain MP wins a seat, on a campaign of remaining, how can they be betraying anyone by sticking to their word?\n\nFor that matter, there was an election after the referendum and a number of MP's were elected on the platform of stopping brexit. Are they being undemocratic or betraying the people by following through on the promises that got them elected? \n\nLabour for example set out in their 2017 manifesto that they wanted to stay in the single market and customs union as part of brexit, and later that they would not support any deal that took us out of the customs union. Supporting any of the brexit options May or Johnson have put forward would have been reneging on those pledges, the pledges that they were elected under. Is it undemocratic for an MP to stick to the promises they made to their constituents?\n\nOur MP's are elected by us, to claim any political action they take (that is in line with the platform they were elected under) is undemocratic, is to say that the referendum was more important than the general election. I don't remember that ever being established, I elected my MP to look after my and my constituencies interests, not to follow the vague and undefined \"will of the people\".", "timestamp": 1567693437 } ]	[ { "author": "Kythorian", "id": "ez474p7", "score": 21, "text": "No one voted for a no-deal Brexit. People voted based on the lie that the UK could get a good deal to leave the EU without any significant consequences. The actual choices of a bad deal, no deal, or remaining was never presented to voters. If you want to listen to the voice of the people, give them the actual options available to vote on.\n\nEdit: And how can you guarantee that the backlash wouldn’t be as bad the other way around? In my opinion it would likely be worse. Pro-Brexit groups would be constantly bitching about it literally for forever, because they never would have seen what the actual Brexit process would be like as we now have, and therefore would still fully believe all the lies told about it prior to the vote.", "timestamp": 1567682165 }, { "author": "trekkerglobal8", "id": "ez47t6g", "score": -11, "text": "The British people voted to leave the EU. Full stop.\n\nThey did not vote to leave the EU only if the sky is blue, or if the grass is green or if some other precondition exist. \n\nWhat is happening now is a corruption of democracy by the rich and powerful, who never wanted Brexit because it will cost them money.", "timestamp": 1567682546 }, { "author": "Kythorian", "id": "ez48nvf", "score": 11, "text": "They absolutely did vote to leave the EU based on specific conditions - the conditions they were promised were that a good deal could be reached with the EU. Those promises were lies. Forcing a population to follow through with something they only agreed to based on a bunch of lies is not democracy. If you want to listen to the will of the people, give them another vote now that they actually understand the options available for the UK.", "timestamp": 1567682970 }, { "author": "[deleted]", "id": "ez493ns", "score": -4, "text": "[deleted]", "timestamp": 1567683164 }, { "author": "Kythorian", "id": "ez49ms7", "score": 5, "text": "So have another vote now that everyone understands the real options available for the UK. If they still vote for Brexit because they think it’s worth it even knowing what it will cost the UK, fine. But it doesn’t look like that is the case. It was a very close vote when the vote was based on a bunch of lies. It’s very, very unlikely that the same results would be had if the vote were held today. Some people like your niece would certainly still vote to leave, but they are likely now in a significant minority.", "timestamp": 1567683399 }, { "author": "trekkerglobal8", "id": "ez49rcu", "score": 2, "text": "So the British must vote again and again until they get the \"right\" result?", "timestamp": 1567683466 }, { "author": "Kythorian", "id": "ez4a4cw", "score": 8, "text": "People have the right to change their mind. There is no principle of democracy requiring one single vote to determine what a nation will do forever. If there is reason to think that the people have changed their minds, yeah, have another vote. If even later there is reason to think they changed their minds again, have yet another vote. More votes is more opportunities for the current will of the people to be followed. There is no “right” result, but what the people want today is what should be done, not what they wanted years ago.", "timestamp": 1567683616 } ]	[ "ez47kln", "ez4j7b6", "ez4lfex", "ez4lnr8", "ez4m1r5", "ez4mqsi", "ez4x5x3" ]	[ "ez474p7", "ez47t6g", "ez48nvf", "ez493ns", "ez49ms7", "ez49rcu", "ez4a4cw" ]
CMV: The Dodo is much more amazing than other extinct animals, an amazing symbol, and we should totally focus our effort on the Dodo instead of mammoth or other animals Dear CMV, The [Dodo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo)^(wikipedia for the uninitiated) was an amazing bird. I'd like to point out why we^(1) should have a firm "Dodo first!" policy, and why we should primarily focus our de\-extinction efforts on the [bird go great magnificence](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodos/) and not on other animals. * The Dodo was peaceful. It had no fight or flight response and was curious, and thus is an amazing symbol. A creature that doesn't fight anyone but doesn't ignore them is an ideal we should all strive towards! * The Dodo Lays eggs. Unlike e.g. Mammoth, this makes it easier to de\-extinct the species and reproduce individuals quicker. * The Dodo says "Dodo" or "Do\-Do" which is pretty amazing. * you can transport it easily compared to other extinct animals like dinosaurs and mammoth and giant eagles. In fact, sailors used to store them on ships to eat their eggs and because they were peaceful * they lived in a known environment that we could use. No need to build a jurassic park, we still have the plants and stuff that still live on mauritius. * when we have enough dodos, they'd make better pets than any other de\-extinct species. Would you have your kid have a mammoth as a pet? Cute when they're young, but two years later your front yard has been destroyed by a single poop. Not ideal. The dodo on the other hand, is larger than a chicken but can still be carried around in a box, is peaceful, your children can cuddle it, and it can't fly out of your garden onto the street. I'd like reddit to contest my view about flaws of the species Dodo, and argue for other species we could de-extinct alternatively to the dodo. ^(1) by we i mean humans globally.	But mammoths could eventually be trained to help us tame the arctic. Wouldn’t it be awesome to ride a mammoth pulled sled? The Dodo can’t do that. --- > Wouldn’t it be awesome to ride a mammoth pulled sled? The Dodo can’t do that. I want to agree with you, but: imagine a sled pulled by 20 dodos! what do you say? does that beat the mammoth? --- Imagine having to train the 20 dodos to not only pull the sled but to do it in unison	Have you considered that peace is not everyone ideal ? Dodos went to extinction because they were not able to adapt to any new environment, so they will never bring any challenge to humanity. If your goal is to provide a competitive environment for mankind so that we do not rot in decadence, luxury and pleasure, you can't expect the dodo to help you, as he's exactly that kind of bird. Imagine now that you revive a Velociraptor, and stimulate his intelligence. You now have a killing machine that is able to compete with mankind, and you force mankind to overcome its limits to survive and thrive for superiority and survival. Thus, we need to focus our de-extinction efforts onto the best killing machine animal to force mankind to dig into its unexploited potential ! --- I'd prefer to be eaten by a dodo to being eaten by a velociraptor. --- Can you be eaten by a dodo ? Dodo is too weak, it won't put you in any danger	8oqbdy	CMV: The Dodo is much more amazing than other extinct animals, an amazing symbol, and we should totally focus our effort on the Dodo instead of mammoth or other animals	Dear CMV, The [Dodo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo)^(wikipedia for the uninitiated) was an amazing bird. I'd like to point out why we^(1) should have a firm "Dodo first!" policy, and why we should primarily focus our de\-extinction efforts on the [bird go great magnificence](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dodos/) and not on other animals. * The Dodo was peaceful. It had no fight or flight response and was curious, and thus is an amazing symbol. A creature that doesn't fight anyone but doesn't ignore them is an ideal we should all strive towards! * The Dodo Lays eggs. Unlike e.g. Mammoth, this makes it easier to de\-extinct the species and reproduce individuals quicker. * The Dodo says "Dodo" or "Do\-Do" which is pretty amazing. * you can transport it easily compared to other extinct animals like dinosaurs and mammoth and giant eagles. In fact, sailors used to store them on ships to eat their eggs and because they were peaceful * they lived in a known environment that we could use. No need to build a jurassic park, we still have the plants and stuff that still live on mauritius. * when we have enough dodos, they'd make better pets than any other de\-extinct species. Would you have your kid have a mammoth as a pet? Cute when they're young, but two years later your front yard has been destroyed by a single poop. Not ideal. The dodo on the other hand, is larger than a chicken but can still be carried around in a box, is peaceful, your children can cuddle it, and it can't fly out of your garden onto the street. I'd like reddit to contest my view about flaws of the species Dodo, and argue for other species we could de-extinct alternatively to the dodo. ^(1) by we i mean humans globally.	Audiomoderator	3	3	[ { "author": "black_flag_4ever", "id": "e05a0o9", "score": 4, "text": "But mammoths could eventually be trained to help us tame the arctic. Wouldn’t it be awesome to ride a mammoth pulled sled? The Dodo can’t do that.", "timestamp": 1528202605 }, { "author": "Audiomoderator", "id": "e05o4ij", "score": 4, "text": "> Wouldn’t it be awesome to ride a mammoth pulled sled? The Dodo can’t do that.\n\nI want to agree with you, but: \n\nimagine a sled pulled by 20 dodos!\n\nwhat do you say? does that beat the mammoth? ", "timestamp": 1528216289 }, { "author": "Sorcha16", "id": "e05p874", "score": 5, "text": "Imagine having to train the 20 dodos to not only pull the sled but to do it in unison", "timestamp": 1528217240 } ]	[ { "author": "Nicolasv2", "id": "e05956m", "score": 2, "text": "Have you considered that peace is not everyone ideal ? Dodos went to extinction because they were not able to adapt to any new environment, so they will never bring any challenge to humanity. \n\nIf your goal is to provide a competitive environment for mankind so that we do not rot in decadence, luxury and pleasure, you can't expect the dodo to help you, as he's exactly that kind of bird. Imagine now that you revive a Velociraptor, and stimulate his intelligence. You now have a killing machine that is able to compete with mankind, and you force mankind to overcome its limits to survive and thrive for superiority and survival.\n\nThus, we need to focus our de-extinction efforts onto the best killing machine animal to force mankind to dig into its unexploited potential !", "timestamp": 1528201472 }, { "author": "AffectionateTop", "id": "e05be76", "score": 3, "text": "I'd prefer to be eaten by a dodo to being eaten by a velociraptor.", "timestamp": 1528204272 }, { "author": "Nicolasv2", "id": "e05cboa", "score": 3, "text": "Can you be eaten by a dodo ? \n\nDodo is too weak, it won't put you in any danger", "timestamp": 1528205316 } ]	[ "e05a0o9", "e05o4ij", "e05p874" ]	[ "e05956m", "e05be76", "e05cboa" ]
CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	> In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy. Heeeeell no. Aesthetics are entirely subjective, so while it might be a desired benefit for some people there are plenty of fitness centre regulars that are actively trying to avoid undesired aesthetic effects (for example women that don't want to appear too toned/hard). The health benefits, on the other hand, are massive and almost universally applicable to adult humans. For me personally, weight lifting in particular provided a life changing health benefit which also saves me hundreds of dollars a year on medicine in just two years or so, which more than a decade of swimming - competitively towards the end - and various other sports had failed to provide. If anything, I'd say the reason people get into fitness is far more likely to be because it's pleasant. I'd much rather lift things in a temperature controlled environment than run around on a muddy/frozen field chasing a ball, and I'd rather do one of those than miss out on the health benefits of either - particularly, the absence of back pain that would otherwise be giving me regular headaches. --- I'd argue the aesthethic benefit is the sole reason people get into fitness. I've seen it on friends and from accounts of friends. Maybe that's why I did a focus on men rather than women. The aesthethic effects might not be that important than the guy who is constantly putting it's progress or it's abs. I'm curious, what exactly are the benefits of lifting? For example, why would lifting be better for your health in comparison to a daily jogging? --- > I'm curious, what exactly are the benefits of lifting? For example, why would lifting be better for your health in comparison to a daily jogging? Increased lean body mass, bone density, positive hormonal changes, resilient connective tissue, mental health benefits, increased metabolic rate, transference to sports/hobbies/parenting whatever the person is into.	Plenty of people do fitness to get better at the sport they do. Also, subreddits like r/GripTraining exist, in which a bunch of people who aren't all in shape/ do general fitness go hard on griptraining. I don't think people swoon over someone who can pinch really hard, and I would consider this fitness. Idk if you agree with that but if you do, that's an example of people doing fitness not to get more attractive. --- Interesting. I can understand the benefits someone gains for their respective sports through the gym but to a regular person that goes to the gym and doesn't do anything more what would be the benefit? --- Yes if you would've made the argument that a lot of people do it for just the sex appeal, I'd possibly agree with you. But there are just so many holes to poke in saying that > Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. Which is what most comments are doing.	l1b5h2	CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.	I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	arnodorian96	3	3	[ { "author": "Runiat", "id": "gjyaizf", "score": 10, "text": "> In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.\n\nHeeeeell no. \n\nAesthetics are entirely subjective, so while it might be a desired benefit for some people there are plenty of fitness centre regulars that are actively trying to avoid undesired aesthetic effects (for example women that don't want to appear too toned/hard). \n\nThe health benefits, on the other hand, are massive and almost universally applicable to adult humans. \n\nFor me personally, weight lifting in particular provided a life changing health benefit which also saves me hundreds of dollars a year on medicine in just two years or so, which more than a decade of swimming - competitively towards the end - and various other sports had failed to provide. \n\nIf anything, I'd say the reason people get into fitness is far more likely to be because it's pleasant. I'd much rather lift things in a temperature controlled environment than run around on a muddy/frozen field chasing a ball, and I'd rather do one of those than miss out on the health benefits of either - particularly, the absence of back pain that would otherwise be giving me regular headaches.", "timestamp": 1611156570 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyj2sv", "score": -1, "text": "I'd argue the aesthethic benefit is the sole reason people get into fitness. I've seen it on friends and from accounts of friends. Maybe that's why I did a focus on men rather than women. The aesthethic effects might not be that important than the guy who is constantly putting it's progress or it's abs. \n\nI'm curious, what exactly are the benefits of lifting? For example, why would lifting be better for your health in comparison to a daily jogging?", "timestamp": 1611160605 }, { "author": "isoldasballs", "id": "gjyosqf", "score": 2, "text": "> I'm curious, what exactly are the benefits of lifting? For example, why would lifting be better for your health in comparison to a daily jogging?\n\nIncreased lean body mass, bone density, positive hormonal changes, resilient connective tissue, mental health benefits, increased metabolic rate, transference to sports/hobbies/parenting whatever the person is into.", "timestamp": 1611163083 } ]	[ { "author": "PivotPsycho", "id": "gjya2yc", "score": 4, "text": "Plenty of people do fitness to get better at the sport they do. \n\n\n\nAlso, subreddits like r/GripTraining exist, in which a bunch of people who aren't all in shape/ do general fitness go hard on griptraining. I don't think people swoon over someone who can pinch really hard, and I would consider this fitness. Idk if you agree with that but if you do, that's an example of people doing fitness not to get more attractive.", "timestamp": 1611156346 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyjfvd", "score": 1, "text": "Interesting. I can understand the benefits someone gains for their respective sports through the gym but to a regular person that goes to the gym and doesn't do anything more what would be the benefit?", "timestamp": 1611160765 }, { "author": "PivotPsycho", "id": "gjyjzn3", "score": 3, "text": "Yes if you would've made the argument that a lot of people do it for just the sex appeal, I'd possibly agree with you. But there are just so many holes to poke in saying that\n\n\n\n> Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. \n\nWhich is what most comments are doing.", "timestamp": 1611161014 } ]	[ "gjyaizf", "gjyj2sv", "gjyosqf" ]	[ "gjya2yc", "gjyjfvd", "gjyjzn3" ]
CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	So everyone has the same motives? "People" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to. --- Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting. --- Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers? Do you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy? --- Wow. I saw some 40 something guys on the gym but never thought old guys would be doing that. The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift. --- > The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift. Lifting does a lot. Sure, you don't want to lift the same in your 20's and in your 60's but if done correctly it can be great for your health. To start with, lifting is often one of the best ways to strengthen stabilizing muscles. Sure it isn't the only way, but it is a very effective way and is in many cases the best choice. Certainly, if you are willing to combine several different methods lifting is a critical one to incorporate. In case you aren't familiar with stabilizing muscles, these are the muscles that hold joints in place and help prevent injury. In some cases, they are small muscles best worked with small weights in specific lifts but in other cases they are large muscles. People with knee injuries are often advised to focus on leg extensions and leg curls to strengthen the quads and hamstrings. Lifting also helps improve bone strength. Bones are much like muscles in that putting them under the correct amount of strain makes them stronger. As you get older, if you don't put your bones under any kind of strain they become brittle and that makes it easy to break a bone if you have an accident. Again, lifting is not the only way to build strength here, but it is a valuable tool to mix into a routine. Having stronger muscles also helps with daily mobility. Muscle strength is actually one of the physical fitness attributes that tends to age the most gracefully. With the right routine, some people can maintain close to their youthful strength well after they have lost the speed, reflexes, agility, and flexibility of youth. Some of those guys in their 40's might even be hitting their peak strength depending on how hard they are training now compared to when they were younger. As you get really old, this can translate into an 80-year-old who can move around just fine with a bit of a spring in their step compared to someone who has never worked out who may need a walker or even be confined to a wheelchair at that point. As a point of example, my grandma who has worked out her whole life is in her 80's and can easily ride dozens of miles on her bike compared to my other grandma who has never worked out and struggles to walk from one end of the room to another.	Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol? Jokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even "cool" gyms. Cardio massively increases your heart's health without making you any more attractive. --- In my experience, there are less women flaunting their abs gains or putting their daily routine as the sole basis of their personality. I might be wrong and that's why I'm here trying to hear a counterpoint. Is cardio considered a fitness activity? I thought that only lifting was considered to be truly fitness. I mean, the whole bulking and all those gym terms sound more related to lifting. --- >Is cardio considered a fitness activity? Lol of course it is. --- Interesting but would it be a different between cardio made through sport and the one you make in a gym? I mean, you could just play soccer or have a bycicle and could well be fitness without having to be involved in the lifting thing. --- I'm not sure what you're asking. Playing soccer would lead to cardiovascular gains just like running on a treadmill would. Whether or not you consider that "fitness" is just semantics.	l1b5h2	CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.	I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	arnodorian96	5	5	[ { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjyfb6d", "score": 19, "text": "So everyone has the same motives? \"People\" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to.", "timestamp": 1611158863 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyj913", "score": 1, "text": "Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting.", "timestamp": 1611160681 }, { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjykx6t", "score": 8, "text": "Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers?\n\nDo you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy?", "timestamp": 1611161417 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyx6l6", "score": -2, "text": "Wow. I saw some 40 something guys on the gym but never thought old guys would be doing that. The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift.", "timestamp": 1611166647 }, { "author": "Crayshack", "id": "gjzcpqn", "score": 7, "text": "> The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift.\n\nLifting does a lot. Sure, you don't want to lift the same in your 20's and in your 60's but if done correctly it can be great for your health.\n\nTo start with, lifting is often one of the best ways to strengthen stabilizing muscles. Sure it isn't the only way, but it is a very effective way and is in many cases the best choice. Certainly, if you are willing to combine several different methods lifting is a critical one to incorporate. In case you aren't familiar with stabilizing muscles, these are the muscles that hold joints in place and help prevent injury. In some cases, they are small muscles best worked with small weights in specific lifts but in other cases they are large muscles. People with knee injuries are often advised to focus on leg extensions and leg curls to strengthen the quads and hamstrings.\n\nLifting also helps improve bone strength. Bones are much like muscles in that putting them under the correct amount of strain makes them stronger. As you get older, if you don't put your bones under any kind of strain they become brittle and that makes it easy to break a bone if you have an accident. Again, lifting is not the only way to build strength here, but it is a valuable tool to mix into a routine.\n\nHaving stronger muscles also helps with daily mobility. Muscle strength is actually one of the physical fitness attributes that tends to age the most gracefully. With the right routine, some people can maintain close to their youthful strength well after they have lost the speed, reflexes, agility, and flexibility of youth. Some of those guys in their 40's might even be hitting their peak strength depending on how hard they are training now compared to when they were younger. As you get really old, this can translate into an 80-year-old who can move around just fine with a bit of a spring in their step compared to someone who has never worked out who may need a walker or even be confined to a wheelchair at that point. As a point of example, my grandma who has worked out her whole life is in her 80's and can easily ride dozens of miles on her bike compared to my other grandma who has never worked out and struggles to walk from one end of the room to another.", "timestamp": 1611173377 } ]	[ { "author": "fencient", "id": "gjya8uq", "score": 3, "text": "Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol?\n\nJokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even \"cool\" gyms. Cardio massively increases your heart's health without making you any more attractive.", "timestamp": 1611156428 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyjx6z", "score": 0, "text": "In my experience, there are less women flaunting their abs gains or putting their daily routine as the sole basis of their personality. I might be wrong and that's why I'm here trying to hear a counterpoint. Is cardio considered a fitness activity? I thought that only lifting was considered to be truly fitness. I mean, the whole bulking and all those gym terms sound more related to lifting.", "timestamp": 1611160984 }, { "author": "isoldasballs", "id": "gjypfbx", "score": 3, "text": ">Is cardio considered a fitness activity?\n\nLol of course it is.", "timestamp": 1611163345 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjytsgn", "score": 1, "text": "Interesting but would it be a different between cardio made through sport and the one you make in a gym? I mean, you could just play soccer or have a bycicle and could well be fitness without having to be involved in the lifting thing.", "timestamp": 1611165191 }, { "author": "isoldasballs", "id": "gjytzo5", "score": 2, "text": "I'm not sure what you're asking. Playing soccer would lead to cardiovascular gains just like running on a treadmill would. Whether or not you consider that \"fitness\" is just semantics.", "timestamp": 1611165277 } ]	[ "gjyfb6d", "gjyj913", "gjykx6t", "gjyx6l6", "gjzcpqn" ]	[ "gjya8uq", "gjyjx6z", "gjypfbx", "gjytsgn", "gjytzo5" ]
CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	This is a destructive attitude that a lot of unfit/unhealthy people have. By telling yourself that fitness is just about vanity, you allow yourself to feel morally superior in your inactivity and unhealthy lifestyle. “I may not be able to run a mile, but at least I’m not a self-absorbed prick.” In truth, the vast majority of people who get into fitness do it either because they enjoy the activity or because they want their body to feel and work better. Most kids who enjoy sports are doing it because it’s fun, and most adults who work out do it because their body doesn’t function properly without it. There is, of course a vanity aspect (as there are with most activities), but few people are so self-absorbed that they would be willing to go through hours of hard work per week for years just to be more attractive. --- Well, I could run a mile a day without having to stand the vanity of people obsessing of their bodies. Or am I wrong? Isn't that's the goal of people going to the gym? I'm not saying it's wrong but it's a lie to sell it as a health benefit when any sport or physical activity could be as good without having to obsess about every inch of your body so you can gain approval by others of your friends at the fitness community. I --- Based on your other comments, it seems like you are obsessing over a very narrow portion of the fitness community and completely ignoring the rest of it. You are correct that there is a subset of people, especially young men, who go to the gym in order to obsess over their bodies. For these guys, fitness is mostly about looking good and less about being healthy. However, there is a much, much larger group of people of all ages and genders that also go to the gym. Strength training is one of the most efficient ways to exercise your body, which is why my gym is full of elderly people, working parents, kids, and more who are all busy doing weight-lifting exercises. Plenty of these people are also doing yoga, running, and other sports, but they also appreciate the benefits of pure strength training. The fitness community is a lot bigger than ab-obsessed gym bros. --- Well, the narrow portion of the fitness comunity is the most vocal of it so it's hard not to ignore them. I can tell you because I've been to the gym and couldn't stand these guys around me constantly telling me what to do or eat if I wanted to look like them and be more attractive to girls. Like i said, none of these people could tell me what exactly was the health benefit I could get through lifting that I couldn't get through another physical activity. But I guess, like in other things, the vocal minority might be the one is more seem, the gym bros as you call them. But the thing is, what is the exact benefit of pure strength training? What can it do to your overall health? --- I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Is your argument that there are no health benefits to strength training, or that people who strength train aren't motivated by them? If you're arguing the former, I don't think you know enough about the subject to be posting a view on this sub. As for the latter, your examples aren't people who are even claiming that. You are essentially describing people bodybuilding and then asking us to convince you that they aren't in it to build their bodies.	What about the fact that being very fit is many times not seen as sexy by most people? Specially in women, strong arms, marked abs and wide shoulders are not commonly seen as sexy in the western female beauty canon, so why do women that build muscles to that point do it if they are "uglier" (at least uglier than if they didn't build that much muscle) for most men? Also disciplines like hammer throw, extreme bodybuilding and weightlifting do not build bodies that are in the western male canon either. Why do those men build those bodies if those are not bodies normally preferred by women? And also also, what about asexual people? Why would an asexual person do any fitness if they don't care about sexually attracting other people? --- That's an interesting argument. For what I've seen, women are not that obsessed with creating this greek god type of body rather than men. I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). That argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. i remember reading about how some protein powders created liver or kidney issues and in other cases the extreme diets these people had led them to more problems. Actually, I think many asexual people would leave fitness (not sports) for the sexual goals most people try to get through it. They wouldn't think flaunting their body to gain other people acceptance would be cool. I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness. --- > I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). Doesn't the existence of these people then contradict your view that people only get into fitness to improve their sex appeal? > That argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. Well, I'm not really making an argument that these forms of fitness are healthy, but that these forms of fitness do not achieve better sex appeal. Your view is that "people don't get into fitness for health but for sex appeal", I'm saying that some don't get into fitness for health or sex appeal either but for performance and competitions. > I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness. Well, I know an asexual who does crossfit. Does that contradict your view? --- I think I get your point. Let me ask you what is the motivation of your friend or person that is asexual regarding fitness? Does he or she feels like it's doing it to get the approval of the rest for it's body or it's more of a personal decision to improve strength? --- >Let me ask you what is the motivation of your friend or person that is asexual regarding fitness? I actually asked him just that once, not because he is asexual (I think he hadn't even come out as asexual yet) but because he does crossfit which is something I usually do not understand compared to normal exercise and he told he just likes the adrenaline from that kind of exercise. People do exercise for many reasons, some to improve their health, some to be better looking, some as occupational therapy, some because they like the adrenaline, some because they want to compete in some form of sport or competition (like bodybuilding), and some for some kind of combination of all of those reasons. The thing is that not everyone who exercises does it for health but also not everyone who exercises does it for their appearance.	l1b5h2	CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.	I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	arnodorian96	5	5	[ { "author": "luigi_itsa", "id": "gjyg23n", "score": 10, "text": "This is a destructive attitude that a lot of unfit/unhealthy people have. By telling yourself that fitness is just about vanity, you allow yourself to feel morally superior in your inactivity and unhealthy lifestyle. “I may not be able to run a mile, but at least I’m not a self-absorbed prick.”\n\nIn truth, the vast majority of people who get into fitness do it either because they enjoy the activity or because they want their body to feel and work better. Most kids who enjoy sports are doing it because it’s fun, and most adults who work out do it because their body doesn’t function properly without it. There is, of course a vanity aspect (as there are with most activities), but few people are so self-absorbed that they would be willing to go through hours of hard work per week for years just to be more attractive.", "timestamp": 1611159214 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyne7f", "score": 0, "text": "Well, I could run a mile a day without having to stand the vanity of people obsessing of their bodies. Or am I wrong? Isn't that's the goal of people going to the gym? I'm not saying it's wrong but it's a lie to sell it as a health benefit when any sport or physical activity could be as good without having to obsess about every inch of your body so you can gain approval by others of your friends at the fitness community.\n\nI", "timestamp": 1611162485 }, { "author": "luigi_itsa", "id": "gjypb2k", "score": 6, "text": "Based on your other comments, it seems like you are obsessing over a very narrow portion of the fitness community and completely ignoring the rest of it. You are correct that there is a subset of people, especially young men, who go to the gym in order to obsess over their bodies. For these guys, fitness is mostly about looking good and less about being healthy.\n\nHowever, there is a much, much larger group of people of all ages and genders that also go to the gym. Strength training is one of the most efficient ways to exercise your body, which is why my gym is full of elderly people, working parents, kids, and more who are all busy doing weight-lifting exercises. Plenty of these people are also doing yoga, running, and other sports, but they also appreciate the benefits of pure strength training. The fitness community is a lot bigger than ab-obsessed gym bros.", "timestamp": 1611163296 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyu9p1", "score": 1, "text": "Well, the narrow portion of the fitness comunity is the most vocal of it so it's hard not to ignore them. I can tell you because I've been to the gym and couldn't stand these guys around me constantly telling me what to do or eat if I wanted to look like them and be more attractive to girls. Like i said, none of these people could tell me what exactly was the health benefit I could get through lifting that I couldn't get through another physical activity.\n\nBut I guess, like in other things, the vocal minority might be the one is more seem, the gym bros as you call them. But the thing is, what is the exact benefit of pure strength training? What can it do to your overall health?", "timestamp": 1611165396 }, { "author": "PassionVoid", "id": "gjyykvq", "score": 3, "text": "I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing here. Is your argument that there are no health benefits to strength training, or that people who strength train aren't motivated by them? If you're arguing the former, I don't think you know enough about the subject to be posting a view on this sub. As for the latter, your examples aren't people who are even claiming that. You are essentially describing people bodybuilding and then asking us to convince you that they aren't in it to build their bodies.", "timestamp": 1611167241 } ]	[ { "author": "smcarre", "id": "gjyfxuh", "score": 14, "text": "What about the fact that being very fit is many times not seen as sexy by most people? \n\nSpecially in women, strong arms, marked abs and wide shoulders are not commonly seen as sexy in the western female beauty canon, so why do women that build muscles to that point do it if they are \"uglier\" (at least uglier than if they didn't build that much muscle) for most men? \n\nAlso disciplines like hammer throw, extreme bodybuilding and weightlifting do not build bodies that are in the western male canon either. Why do those men build those bodies if those are not bodies normally preferred by women?\n\nAnd also also, what about asexual people? Why would an asexual person do any fitness if they don't care about sexually attracting other people?", "timestamp": 1611159158 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyldmj", "score": 1, "text": "That's an interesting argument. For what I've seen, women are not that obsessed with creating this greek god type of body rather than men. I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). \n\nThat argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. i remember reading about how some protein powders created liver or kidney issues and in other cases the extreme diets these people had led them to more problems. \n\nActually, I think many asexual people would leave fitness (not sports) for the sexual goals most people try to get through it. They wouldn't think flaunting their body to gain other people acceptance would be cool. I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness.", "timestamp": 1611161614 }, { "author": "smcarre", "id": "gjymn9s", "score": 9, "text": "> I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). \n\nDoesn't the existence of these people then contradict your view that people only get into fitness to improve their sex appeal?\n\n> That argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. \n\nWell, I'm not really making an argument that these forms of fitness are healthy, but that these forms of fitness do not achieve better sex appeal. Your view is that \"people don't get into fitness for health but for sex appeal\", I'm saying that some don't get into fitness for health or sex appeal either but for performance and competitions.\n\n> I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness. \n\nWell, I know an asexual who does crossfit. Does that contradict your view?", "timestamp": 1611162160 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyvb6k", "score": 1, "text": "I think I get your point. Let me ask you what is the motivation of your friend or person that is asexual regarding fitness? Does he or she feels like it's doing it to get the approval of the rest for it's body or it's more of a personal decision to improve strength?", "timestamp": 1611165840 }, { "author": "smcarre", "id": "gjyx8r1", "score": 4, "text": ">Let me ask you what is the motivation of your friend or person that is asexual regarding fitness?\n\nI actually asked him just that once, not because he is asexual (I think he hadn't even come out as asexual yet) but because he does crossfit which is something I usually do not understand compared to normal exercise and he told he just likes the adrenaline from that kind of exercise. \n\nPeople do exercise for many reasons, some to improve their health, some to be better looking, some as occupational therapy, some because they like the adrenaline, some because they want to compete in some form of sport or competition (like bodybuilding), and some for some kind of combination of all of those reasons.\n\nThe thing is that not everyone who exercises does it for health but also not everyone who exercises does it for their appearance.", "timestamp": 1611166673 } ]	[ "gjyg23n", "gjyne7f", "gjypb2k", "gjyu9p1", "gjyykvq" ]	[ "gjyfxuh", "gjyldmj", "gjymn9s", "gjyvb6k", "gjyx8r1" ]
CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol? Jokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even "cool" gyms. Cardio massively increases your heart's health without making you any more attractive. --- In my experience, there are less women flaunting their abs gains or putting their daily routine as the sole basis of their personality. I might be wrong and that's why I'm here trying to hear a counterpoint. Is cardio considered a fitness activity? I thought that only lifting was considered to be truly fitness. I mean, the whole bulking and all those gym terms sound more related to lifting. --- >Is cardio considered a fitness activity? Lol of course it is. --- Interesting but would it be a different between cardio made through sport and the one you make in a gym? I mean, you could just play soccer or have a bycicle and could well be fitness without having to be involved in the lifting thing. --- I'm not sure what you're asking. Playing soccer would lead to cardiovascular gains just like running on a treadmill would. Whether or not you consider that "fitness" is just semantics. --- Yeah, I mean I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles. If the meaning of fitness is broad and comprehends even sport activities then I can see the benefit of that. --- > I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles. I'm curious where you got this misconception.	So everyone has the same motives? "People" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to. --- Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting. --- Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers? Do you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy? --- Wow. I saw some 40 something guys on the gym but never thought old guys would be doing that. The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift. --- >The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift Sounds like a topic for another post. Did I CYV? If you want my two-cents on that though, I'd say that the vast majority of strength training for the geriatric populations is low-intensity to offset atrophy. Not so much to get buff lol --- Δ Yeah, that's the best example I needed it to understand that fitness goes beyond the instagram gym bros. Thanks for the info. --- Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BigHanksHalfaTank ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BigHanksHalfaTank)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)	l1b5h2	CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.	I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	arnodorian96	7	7	[ { "author": "fencient", "id": "gjya8uq", "score": 3, "text": "Why just men? Have you never browsed instagram lol?\n\nJokes aside, one example of a fitness activity that increases your health without increasing your sex appeal is cardio. Treadmills are the most heavily-used equipment in any gym, even \"cool\" gyms. Cardio massively increases your heart's health without making you any more attractive.", "timestamp": 1611156428 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyjx6z", "score": 0, "text": "In my experience, there are less women flaunting their abs gains or putting their daily routine as the sole basis of their personality. I might be wrong and that's why I'm here trying to hear a counterpoint. Is cardio considered a fitness activity? I thought that only lifting was considered to be truly fitness. I mean, the whole bulking and all those gym terms sound more related to lifting.", "timestamp": 1611160984 }, { "author": "isoldasballs", "id": "gjypfbx", "score": 3, "text": ">Is cardio considered a fitness activity?\n\nLol of course it is.", "timestamp": 1611163345 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjytsgn", "score": 1, "text": "Interesting but would it be a different between cardio made through sport and the one you make in a gym? I mean, you could just play soccer or have a bycicle and could well be fitness without having to be involved in the lifting thing.", "timestamp": 1611165191 }, { "author": "isoldasballs", "id": "gjytzo5", "score": 2, "text": "I'm not sure what you're asking. Playing soccer would lead to cardiovascular gains just like running on a treadmill would. Whether or not you consider that \"fitness\" is just semantics.", "timestamp": 1611165277 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjz0ypu", "score": 1, "text": "Yeah, I mean I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles. If the meaning of fitness is broad and comprehends even sport activities then I can see the benefit of that.", "timestamp": 1611168275 }, { "author": "fiiiiiine", "id": "gjzbtyx", "score": 1, "text": "> I thought that fitness was only considered lifting and the activities you made in a gym to get muscles.\n\nI'm curious where you got this misconception.", "timestamp": 1611172984 } ]	[ { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjyfb6d", "score": 19, "text": "So everyone has the same motives? \"People\" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to.", "timestamp": 1611158863 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyj913", "score": 1, "text": "Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting.", "timestamp": 1611160681 }, { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjykx6t", "score": 8, "text": "Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers?\n\nDo you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy?", "timestamp": 1611161417 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyx6l6", "score": -2, "text": "Wow. I saw some 40 something guys on the gym but never thought old guys would be doing that. The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift.", "timestamp": 1611166647 }, { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjyxnlc", "score": 2, "text": ">The only thing I cannot understand is how lifting helps their health. I thought that due to the changes in age it would be the best not to lift\n\nSounds like a topic for another post. Did I CYV?\n\nIf you want my two-cents on that though, I'd say that the vast majority of strength training for the geriatric populations is low-intensity to offset atrophy. Not so much to get buff lol", "timestamp": 1611166849 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyzjce", "score": 2, "text": "Δ Yeah, that's the best example I needed it to understand that fitness goes beyond the instagram gym bros. Thanks for the info.", "timestamp": 1611167653 }, { "author": "DeltaBot", "id": "gjyzkwk", "score": 1, "text": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BigHanksHalfaTank ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BigHanksHalfaTank)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^\| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)", "timestamp": 1611167671 } ]	[ "gjya8uq", "gjyjx6z", "gjypfbx", "gjytsgn", "gjytzo5", "gjz0ypu", "gjzbtyx" ]	[ "gjyfb6d", "gjyj913", "gjykx6t", "gjyx6l6", "gjyxnlc", "gjyzjce", "gjyzkwk" ]
CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal. I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	What about the fact that being very fit is many times not seen as sexy by most people? Specially in women, strong arms, marked abs and wide shoulders are not commonly seen as sexy in the western female beauty canon, so why do women that build muscles to that point do it if they are "uglier" (at least uglier than if they didn't build that much muscle) for most men? Also disciplines like hammer throw, extreme bodybuilding and weightlifting do not build bodies that are in the western male canon either. Why do those men build those bodies if those are not bodies normally preferred by women? And also also, what about asexual people? Why would an asexual person do any fitness if they don't care about sexually attracting other people? --- That's an interesting argument. For what I've seen, women are not that obsessed with creating this greek god type of body rather than men. I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). That argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. i remember reading about how some protein powders created liver or kidney issues and in other cases the extreme diets these people had led them to more problems. Actually, I think many asexual people would leave fitness (not sports) for the sexual goals most people try to get through it. They wouldn't think flaunting their body to gain other people acceptance would be cool. I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness. --- Hello. Asexual here. I like fitness. (I like it but I don't always make time for it as there's a lot of things to do). I mean I prefer group sports and martial arts more, but in general I just like a good sweat, and general fitness routines are more easily done at home since I find that more preferable then going to a location for exercise.	So everyone has the same motives? "People" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to. --- Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting. --- Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers? Do you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy?	l1b5h2	CMV: People get into fitness not for health but for personal appearance and sexual appeal.	I'm going to say this goes specifically to men, from what I've seen in personal experiences and heard from friends experience. First, let's separate fitness from sports. Everyone agrees that doing sports is good for your health and can increase your life expectancy. Wether it's soccer, swimming or a martial art you are truly doing for the sake of the sport and not to be more sexually attractive to a woman or man. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against fitness people but I do feel that lots of these groups shouldn't promote themselves by claiming it's for health when most of the time you could try an sport without going into fitness. Fitness and gaining muscles it's nothing more than a biological excuse to be more sexually attractive. Everyone that gets into these places just want to be more attractive to everyone around them. That's why you view these groups always giving importance to a guy's physique specially abs. In other words, fitness it's more of an aestethic activity than truly healthy.	arnodorian96	3	3	[ { "author": "smcarre", "id": "gjyfxuh", "score": 14, "text": "What about the fact that being very fit is many times not seen as sexy by most people? \n\nSpecially in women, strong arms, marked abs and wide shoulders are not commonly seen as sexy in the western female beauty canon, so why do women that build muscles to that point do it if they are \"uglier\" (at least uglier than if they didn't build that much muscle) for most men? \n\nAlso disciplines like hammer throw, extreme bodybuilding and weightlifting do not build bodies that are in the western male canon either. Why do those men build those bodies if those are not bodies normally preferred by women?\n\nAnd also also, what about asexual people? Why would an asexual person do any fitness if they don't care about sexually attracting other people?", "timestamp": 1611159158 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyldmj", "score": 1, "text": "That's an interesting argument. For what I've seen, women are not that obsessed with creating this greek god type of body rather than men. I've seen more men obsessing over food, over the abs they should be getting by now and taking pictures of their progress than women involved in fitness. (Which of course exist). \n\nThat argument about extreme bodybulding also opens up the question of how healthy lifting is on the long term. i remember reading about how some protein powders created liver or kidney issues and in other cases the extreme diets these people had led them to more problems. \n\nActually, I think many asexual people would leave fitness (not sports) for the sexual goals most people try to get through it. They wouldn't think flaunting their body to gain other people acceptance would be cool. I still have to meet an asexual that is into fitness.", "timestamp": 1611161614 }, { "author": "Yunan94", "id": "gk0ky7d", "score": 2, "text": "Hello. Asexual here. I like fitness. (I like it but I don't always make time for it as there's a lot of things to do). I mean I prefer group sports and martial arts more, but in general I just like a good sweat, and general fitness routines are more easily done at home since I find that more preferable then going to a location for exercise.", "timestamp": 1611194652 } ]	[ { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjyfb6d", "score": 19, "text": "So everyone has the same motives? \"People\" in general? This is absolutist thinking and it's pretty easy to counter. I will expand on it, however. If you want me to.", "timestamp": 1611158863 }, { "author": "arnodorian96", "id": "gjyj913", "score": 1, "text": "Go on. I mean, just scroll through reddit (leaving social media asides) and you'll see how many men, specially, are doing it just for the sake of appearance. In fact, lots of these people wouldn't even point out a health benefit of lifting.", "timestamp": 1611160681 }, { "author": "BigHanksHalfaTank", "id": "gjykx6t", "score": 8, "text": "Alright. Are you familiar with silver sneakers?\n\nDo you think grandpa is doing water aerobics to get a 6-pack and more pussy?", "timestamp": 1611161417 } ]	[ "gjyfxuh", "gjyldmj", "gk0ky7d" ]	[ "gjyfb6d", "gjyj913", "gjykx6t" ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.